MDedge Psychiatry

Key clinical point: The addition of pimavanserin to ongoing treatment improves sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Major finding: Pimavanserin vs. placebo significantly improved the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index mean scores from baseline to week 5 (least square mean difference, −0.634; P = .0002). Item 14 scores (sexual interest) on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improved significantly with pimavanserin vs. placebo (P less than .05).

Study details: This secondary analysis of the CLARITY study included 203 patients with MDD randomly assigned to either pimavanserin (n = 51) or placebo (n = 152) in addition to their current treatment.

Disclosures: This study was funded by ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Marlene Freeman: Investigator Initiated Trials/Research: Takeda, JayMac, Sage; Advisory boards: Otsuka, Alkermes, Janssen, Sage; Sunovion; Independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee: Janssen (Johnson & Johnson); Medical Editing: GOED newsletter. Speaking/honoraria: U.S. Psychiatric Congress, Medscape. He is an employee of Massachusetts General Hospital and works with the MGH National Pregnancy Registry.

Citation: Freeman MP et al. Depress Anxiety. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1002/da.23017.

Key clinical point: The addition of pimavanserin to ongoing treatment improves sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Major finding: Pimavanserin vs. placebo significantly improved the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index mean scores from baseline to week 5 (least square mean difference, −0.634; P = .0002). Item 14 scores (sexual interest) on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improved significantly with pimavanserin vs. placebo (P less than .05).

Study details: This secondary analysis of the CLARITY study included 203 patients with MDD randomly assigned to either pimavanserin (n = 51) or placebo (n = 152) in addition to their current treatment.

Disclosures: This study was funded by ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Marlene Freeman: Investigator Initiated Trials/Research: Takeda, JayMac, Sage; Advisory boards: Otsuka, Alkermes, Janssen, Sage; Sunovion; Independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee: Janssen (Johnson & Johnson); Medical Editing: GOED newsletter. Speaking/honoraria: U.S. Psychiatric Congress, Medscape. He is an employee of Massachusetts General Hospital and works with the MGH National Pregnancy Registry.

Citation: Freeman MP et al. Depress Anxiety. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1002/da.23017.

Key clinical point: The addition of pimavanserin to ongoing treatment improves sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Major finding: Pimavanserin vs. placebo significantly improved the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index mean scores from baseline to week 5 (least square mean difference, −0.634; P = .0002). Item 14 scores (sexual interest) on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improved significantly with pimavanserin vs. placebo (P less than .05).

Study details: This secondary analysis of the CLARITY study included 203 patients with MDD randomly assigned to either pimavanserin (n = 51) or placebo (n = 152) in addition to their current treatment.

Disclosures: This study was funded by ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Marlene Freeman: Investigator Initiated Trials/Research: Takeda, JayMac, Sage; Advisory boards: Otsuka, Alkermes, Janssen, Sage; Sunovion; Independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee: Janssen (Johnson & Johnson); Medical Editing: GOED newsletter. Speaking/honoraria: U.S. Psychiatric Congress, Medscape. He is an employee of Massachusetts General Hospital and works with the MGH National Pregnancy Registry.

Citation: Freeman MP et al. Depress Anxiety. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1002/da.23017.

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Race is not something I’ve spent that much time contemplating. I grew up in Elizabeth, N.J., a city of just over 100,000, in the 1970s and attended public schools where people came in all shapes and colors; diversity came with the turf, it wasn’t something anyone needed to strive for.

My high school had more than 4,000 students with roughly even numbers of white, black, and Hispanic students. Armed police patrolled the halls, the thick aroma of weed settled in the stairwells and restrooms, girls brought their babies to school to show them off on half-days, and the “preppies” wore Fair Isle sweaters and played on the tennis team. The school’s campus was brand new and every lab, studio, and athletic amenity was state of the art; at the time, it was the most expensive public high school ever built in America. There were black teachers, librarians, and administrators, and segregation was something we read about in history books. I lived in a world of Technicolor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, while still fresh in the minds of the adults, was something that showed up on black-and-white footage from another time.

My world became both wealthier and whiter when I went to college. There were minority students, but many of the black students at the University of Pennsylvania chose to live in the W.E.B. Du Bois College House.

People are often more comfortable being with others who share their backgrounds and this makes for an interesting conundrum: We all agree that desegregation is a good thing, but not everyone wishes to be told either where to go or not go, and there is an odd unbalance to creating a safe place for black students to be, one that both integrates and separates them from the larger community. Perhaps all our lines get fuzzy – I recall when I was on the Maryland Psychiatric Society Women’s Committee and a male psychiatrist signed up to join us – he was politely told that he could not join, but 20 years later, I’m wondering if it was okay to exclude a man who expressed interest in women’s issues.

In medical school, we were taught to note a patient’s age, race, and marital status, and we might learn that certain illnesses were more prevalent in certain populations, but there was no discussion of racial inequities in health care or anywhere else.

What was really different about the world back then, however, was what we didn’t see and what we didn’t talk about. Social media has opened a world where we can share our pain in the moment and we can band together to speak out against crimes and injustices in every realm. From the MeToo moments, to racially motivated police brutality. Cell phone cameras let us record and publicize these moments so the world can be the judge. George Floyd’s sadistic murder by a police officer, as other officers stood by and watched 8 minutes and 46 seconds of torture, left us all triggered, distressed, angry, sad, and activated. Maybe now we can make real progress on a discussion that began in 1992 with the videotape of Rodney King’s assault, a discussion we’ve had over and over to no avail.

Obviously, I have also been provoked by the events of the past weeks – like many Americans, I’ve paused to wonder how I can help the cause, both personally and as a psychiatrist. I would not normally write about racial topics – as a white woman I can listen, but I don’t feel this pain in the same way as someone who has lived with a lifetime of discrimination and oppression. Dr. Lorenzo Norris and Dr. Brandon Newsome,two black psychiatrists, put out a special edition of the MDEdge Psychcast, “The fallout from George Floyd’s death,” and Dr. Norris noted that two of his white colleagues told him they thought of checking on him, but they didn’t know what to say. Yes, I thought, that’s exactly it, I don’t know what to say and I worry that I might unintentionally say something that would worsen someone else’s pain. Staying silent has always seemed to be the safest option. With this article, I’m moving from a place of comfort.

I started my career with a mix of private practice and community psychiatry. There were things I loved about working in a community clinic: the social aspects of being part of a team, seeing a full range of psychopathology, and treating patients in which the racial and ethnic demographics mirrored that of the community. There were things I didn’t like, however. The pay was low, there were constant institutional requirements that were not relevant to the practice of psychiatry, and my relationship with the patients as their prescriber was much less fulfilling than the relationship I have with those I see for both psychotherapy and medication. Ultimately, the hospital shift to electronic medical records was the final distraction that caused me to leave community work.

Like roughly half of psychiatrists in private practice, I don’t participate with commercial or public insurance plans. Early in my career, I worked in a group setting with billing secretaries, and I did participate with Blue Cross, but even with administrative help, nothing about this was easy, and when I left to do solo practice, I left insurance participation behind. I love the autonomy of my career, I’m proud of the care I am able to give in this setting, and I don’t miss the hassles. But I struggle with the fact that this is not the socially responsible thing to do – the out-of-pocket cost of care is higher and the effort of trying to get reimbursed falls to the patient. It means that most of the patients I see have the means to pay for care, none are impoverished or homeless, and while I work in a city that is 62% black, black patients make up a small percentage of my caseload. I don’t think I am unique in this; I would be shocked if any white private practice psychiatrist who specializes in psychotherapy is serving a racially proportionate population. As we start to embrace the idea that people don’t neatly divide into being racist or not, and that bias affects us all, we must acknowledge that medical practices that don’t support racially balanced access to care are part of the problem.

Amy R. Greensfelder, LMSW, is the executive director of Maryland’s Pro Bono Counseling Project (PBCP), an organization that coordinates mental health professionals in private practice in Maryland to volunteer their services to those with limited resources. PBCP has found that 50% of those seeking services share that they are black or African American, and an additional 5% identify as multiracial. Of all of those seeking care approximately 65% are black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), and and 14% are Latino/a/x/Hispanic. She says: “We see the racial composition of our clients as a direct demonstration of who is being left behind in the mental health system as it’s currently set up, as BIPOC individuals are represented to a greater degree in our clients than they are in the general population of Maryland. During our intake interview, we provide an opportunity for clients to share if there are certain characteristics they are looking for in a therapist – often black clients share that they would prefer to be matched with a black therapist or a therapist who has received specific training on working with black clients.”

While 13% of the American population is black, only 4% of physicians, 2% of psychiatrists, and 4% of psychologists are black. In her Psychology Today blog post, “Why African Americans Avoid Psychotherapy,” Monnica T. Williams, PhD, notes: “Apprehension about clashing with the values or worldview of the clinician can cause ambivalence about seeking help, and this may be especially true for the many who believe that mental health treatment was designed by white people for white people.” Dr. Williams notes that black Americans also are less likely to seek care because of increased stigma and fear of judgment, concerns about the treatment process, and fears of being involuntarily hospitalized, cost and lack of insurance, and finally logistical issues with work, transportation, and family responsibilities.

George Floyd’s tragic death has led us to a moment of crisis. It’s my hope that the dialogue is now galvanized to make meaningful changes toward fixing racial inequities. I am part of the problem and these conversations need to include more equitable access to psychiatric care.
 

My thanks to Rachel Donabedian and Gina Henderson for their help with this article.


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

Race is not something I’ve spent that much time contemplating. I grew up in Elizabeth, N.J., a city of just over 100,000, in the 1970s and attended public schools where people came in all shapes and colors; diversity came with the turf, it wasn’t something anyone needed to strive for.

My high school had more than 4,000 students with roughly even numbers of white, black, and Hispanic students. Armed police patrolled the halls, the thick aroma of weed settled in the stairwells and restrooms, girls brought their babies to school to show them off on half-days, and the “preppies” wore Fair Isle sweaters and played on the tennis team. The school’s campus was brand new and every lab, studio, and athletic amenity was state of the art; at the time, it was the most expensive public high school ever built in America. There were black teachers, librarians, and administrators, and segregation was something we read about in history books. I lived in a world of Technicolor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, while still fresh in the minds of the adults, was something that showed up on black-and-white footage from another time.

My world became both wealthier and whiter when I went to college. There were minority students, but many of the black students at the University of Pennsylvania chose to live in the W.E.B. Du Bois College House.

People are often more comfortable being with others who share their backgrounds and this makes for an interesting conundrum: We all agree that desegregation is a good thing, but not everyone wishes to be told either where to go or not go, and there is an odd unbalance to creating a safe place for black students to be, one that both integrates and separates them from the larger community. Perhaps all our lines get fuzzy – I recall when I was on the Maryland Psychiatric Society Women’s Committee and a male psychiatrist signed up to join us – he was politely told that he could not join, but 20 years later, I’m wondering if it was okay to exclude a man who expressed interest in women’s issues.

In medical school, we were taught to note a patient’s age, race, and marital status, and we might learn that certain illnesses were more prevalent in certain populations, but there was no discussion of racial inequities in health care or anywhere else.

What was really different about the world back then, however, was what we didn’t see and what we didn’t talk about. Social media has opened a world where we can share our pain in the moment and we can band together to speak out against crimes and injustices in every realm. From the MeToo moments, to racially motivated police brutality. Cell phone cameras let us record and publicize these moments so the world can be the judge. George Floyd’s sadistic murder by a police officer, as other officers stood by and watched 8 minutes and 46 seconds of torture, left us all triggered, distressed, angry, sad, and activated. Maybe now we can make real progress on a discussion that began in 1992 with the videotape of Rodney King’s assault, a discussion we’ve had over and over to no avail.

Obviously, I have also been provoked by the events of the past weeks – like many Americans, I’ve paused to wonder how I can help the cause, both personally and as a psychiatrist. I would not normally write about racial topics – as a white woman I can listen, but I don’t feel this pain in the same way as someone who has lived with a lifetime of discrimination and oppression. Dr. Lorenzo Norris and Dr. Brandon Newsome,two black psychiatrists, put out a special edition of the MDEdge Psychcast, “The fallout from George Floyd’s death,” and Dr. Norris noted that two of his white colleagues told him they thought of checking on him, but they didn’t know what to say. Yes, I thought, that’s exactly it, I don’t know what to say and I worry that I might unintentionally say something that would worsen someone else’s pain. Staying silent has always seemed to be the safest option. With this article, I’m moving from a place of comfort.

I started my career with a mix of private practice and community psychiatry. There were things I loved about working in a community clinic: the social aspects of being part of a team, seeing a full range of psychopathology, and treating patients in which the racial and ethnic demographics mirrored that of the community. There were things I didn’t like, however. The pay was low, there were constant institutional requirements that were not relevant to the practice of psychiatry, and my relationship with the patients as their prescriber was much less fulfilling than the relationship I have with those I see for both psychotherapy and medication. Ultimately, the hospital shift to electronic medical records was the final distraction that caused me to leave community work.

Like roughly half of psychiatrists in private practice, I don’t participate with commercial or public insurance plans. Early in my career, I worked in a group setting with billing secretaries, and I did participate with Blue Cross, but even with administrative help, nothing about this was easy, and when I left to do solo practice, I left insurance participation behind. I love the autonomy of my career, I’m proud of the care I am able to give in this setting, and I don’t miss the hassles. But I struggle with the fact that this is not the socially responsible thing to do – the out-of-pocket cost of care is higher and the effort of trying to get reimbursed falls to the patient. It means that most of the patients I see have the means to pay for care, none are impoverished or homeless, and while I work in a city that is 62% black, black patients make up a small percentage of my caseload. I don’t think I am unique in this; I would be shocked if any white private practice psychiatrist who specializes in psychotherapy is serving a racially proportionate population. As we start to embrace the idea that people don’t neatly divide into being racist or not, and that bias affects us all, we must acknowledge that medical practices that don’t support racially balanced access to care are part of the problem.

Amy R. Greensfelder, LMSW, is the executive director of Maryland’s Pro Bono Counseling Project (PBCP), an organization that coordinates mental health professionals in private practice in Maryland to volunteer their services to those with limited resources. PBCP has found that 50% of those seeking services share that they are black or African American, and an additional 5% identify as multiracial. Of all of those seeking care approximately 65% are black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), and and 14% are Latino/a/x/Hispanic. She says: “We see the racial composition of our clients as a direct demonstration of who is being left behind in the mental health system as it’s currently set up, as BIPOC individuals are represented to a greater degree in our clients than they are in the general population of Maryland. During our intake interview, we provide an opportunity for clients to share if there are certain characteristics they are looking for in a therapist – often black clients share that they would prefer to be matched with a black therapist or a therapist who has received specific training on working with black clients.”

While 13% of the American population is black, only 4% of physicians, 2% of psychiatrists, and 4% of psychologists are black. In her Psychology Today blog post, “Why African Americans Avoid Psychotherapy,” Monnica T. Williams, PhD, notes: “Apprehension about clashing with the values or worldview of the clinician can cause ambivalence about seeking help, and this may be especially true for the many who believe that mental health treatment was designed by white people for white people.” Dr. Williams notes that black Americans also are less likely to seek care because of increased stigma and fear of judgment, concerns about the treatment process, and fears of being involuntarily hospitalized, cost and lack of insurance, and finally logistical issues with work, transportation, and family responsibilities.

George Floyd’s tragic death has led us to a moment of crisis. It’s my hope that the dialogue is now galvanized to make meaningful changes toward fixing racial inequities. I am part of the problem and these conversations need to include more equitable access to psychiatric care.
 

My thanks to Rachel Donabedian and Gina Henderson for their help with this article.


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

Race is not something I’ve spent that much time contemplating. I grew up in Elizabeth, N.J., a city of just over 100,000, in the 1970s and attended public schools where people came in all shapes and colors; diversity came with the turf, it wasn’t something anyone needed to strive for.

My high school had more than 4,000 students with roughly even numbers of white, black, and Hispanic students. Armed police patrolled the halls, the thick aroma of weed settled in the stairwells and restrooms, girls brought their babies to school to show them off on half-days, and the “preppies” wore Fair Isle sweaters and played on the tennis team. The school’s campus was brand new and every lab, studio, and athletic amenity was state of the art; at the time, it was the most expensive public high school ever built in America. There were black teachers, librarians, and administrators, and segregation was something we read about in history books. I lived in a world of Technicolor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, while still fresh in the minds of the adults, was something that showed up on black-and-white footage from another time.

My world became both wealthier and whiter when I went to college. There were minority students, but many of the black students at the University of Pennsylvania chose to live in the W.E.B. Du Bois College House.

People are often more comfortable being with others who share their backgrounds and this makes for an interesting conundrum: We all agree that desegregation is a good thing, but not everyone wishes to be told either where to go or not go, and there is an odd unbalance to creating a safe place for black students to be, one that both integrates and separates them from the larger community. Perhaps all our lines get fuzzy – I recall when I was on the Maryland Psychiatric Society Women’s Committee and a male psychiatrist signed up to join us – he was politely told that he could not join, but 20 years later, I’m wondering if it was okay to exclude a man who expressed interest in women’s issues.

In medical school, we were taught to note a patient’s age, race, and marital status, and we might learn that certain illnesses were more prevalent in certain populations, but there was no discussion of racial inequities in health care or anywhere else.

What was really different about the world back then, however, was what we didn’t see and what we didn’t talk about. Social media has opened a world where we can share our pain in the moment and we can band together to speak out against crimes and injustices in every realm. From the MeToo moments, to racially motivated police brutality. Cell phone cameras let us record and publicize these moments so the world can be the judge. George Floyd’s sadistic murder by a police officer, as other officers stood by and watched 8 minutes and 46 seconds of torture, left us all triggered, distressed, angry, sad, and activated. Maybe now we can make real progress on a discussion that began in 1992 with the videotape of Rodney King’s assault, a discussion we’ve had over and over to no avail.

Obviously, I have also been provoked by the events of the past weeks – like many Americans, I’ve paused to wonder how I can help the cause, both personally and as a psychiatrist. I would not normally write about racial topics – as a white woman I can listen, but I don’t feel this pain in the same way as someone who has lived with a lifetime of discrimination and oppression. Dr. Lorenzo Norris and Dr. Brandon Newsome,two black psychiatrists, put out a special edition of the MDEdge Psychcast, “The fallout from George Floyd’s death,” and Dr. Norris noted that two of his white colleagues told him they thought of checking on him, but they didn’t know what to say. Yes, I thought, that’s exactly it, I don’t know what to say and I worry that I might unintentionally say something that would worsen someone else’s pain. Staying silent has always seemed to be the safest option. With this article, I’m moving from a place of comfort.

I started my career with a mix of private practice and community psychiatry. There were things I loved about working in a community clinic: the social aspects of being part of a team, seeing a full range of psychopathology, and treating patients in which the racial and ethnic demographics mirrored that of the community. There were things I didn’t like, however. The pay was low, there were constant institutional requirements that were not relevant to the practice of psychiatry, and my relationship with the patients as their prescriber was much less fulfilling than the relationship I have with those I see for both psychotherapy and medication. Ultimately, the hospital shift to electronic medical records was the final distraction that caused me to leave community work.

Like roughly half of psychiatrists in private practice, I don’t participate with commercial or public insurance plans. Early in my career, I worked in a group setting with billing secretaries, and I did participate with Blue Cross, but even with administrative help, nothing about this was easy, and when I left to do solo practice, I left insurance participation behind. I love the autonomy of my career, I’m proud of the care I am able to give in this setting, and I don’t miss the hassles. But I struggle with the fact that this is not the socially responsible thing to do – the out-of-pocket cost of care is higher and the effort of trying to get reimbursed falls to the patient. It means that most of the patients I see have the means to pay for care, none are impoverished or homeless, and while I work in a city that is 62% black, black patients make up a small percentage of my caseload. I don’t think I am unique in this; I would be shocked if any white private practice psychiatrist who specializes in psychotherapy is serving a racially proportionate population. As we start to embrace the idea that people don’t neatly divide into being racist or not, and that bias affects us all, we must acknowledge that medical practices that don’t support racially balanced access to care are part of the problem.

Amy R. Greensfelder, LMSW, is the executive director of Maryland’s Pro Bono Counseling Project (PBCP), an organization that coordinates mental health professionals in private practice in Maryland to volunteer their services to those with limited resources. PBCP has found that 50% of those seeking services share that they are black or African American, and an additional 5% identify as multiracial. Of all of those seeking care approximately 65% are black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), and and 14% are Latino/a/x/Hispanic. She says: “We see the racial composition of our clients as a direct demonstration of who is being left behind in the mental health system as it’s currently set up, as BIPOC individuals are represented to a greater degree in our clients than they are in the general population of Maryland. During our intake interview, we provide an opportunity for clients to share if there are certain characteristics they are looking for in a therapist – often black clients share that they would prefer to be matched with a black therapist or a therapist who has received specific training on working with black clients.”

While 13% of the American population is black, only 4% of physicians, 2% of psychiatrists, and 4% of psychologists are black. In her Psychology Today blog post, “Why African Americans Avoid Psychotherapy,” Monnica T. Williams, PhD, notes: “Apprehension about clashing with the values or worldview of the clinician can cause ambivalence about seeking help, and this may be especially true for the many who believe that mental health treatment was designed by white people for white people.” Dr. Williams notes that black Americans also are less likely to seek care because of increased stigma and fear of judgment, concerns about the treatment process, and fears of being involuntarily hospitalized, cost and lack of insurance, and finally logistical issues with work, transportation, and family responsibilities.

George Floyd’s tragic death has led us to a moment of crisis. It’s my hope that the dialogue is now galvanized to make meaningful changes toward fixing racial inequities. I am part of the problem and these conversations need to include more equitable access to psychiatric care.
 

My thanks to Rachel Donabedian and Gina Henderson for their help with this article.


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

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]