Clinical

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two reports of chilblain-like lesions in children suspected of having COVID-19 in Spain and Italy have been published, joining other recent reports of such cases in the United States and elsewhere.

These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, from hospitals in Milan and Madrid, published in Pediatric Dermatology.

In the first study, Cristiana Colonna, MD, and colleagues at Hospital Maggiore Polyclinic in Milan described four cases of chilblain-like lesions in children ages 5-11 years with mild COVID-19 symptoms.

In the second, David Andina, MD, and colleagues in the ED and the departments of dermatology and pathology at the Child Jesus University Children’s Hospital in Madrid published a retrospective study of 22 cases in children and adolescents ages 6-17 years who reported to the hospital ED from April 6 to 17, the peak of the pandemic in Madrid.

In all four of the Milan cases, the skin lesions appeared several days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, although all four patients initially tested negative for COVID-19. However, Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote that, “given the fact that the sensitivity and specificity of both nasopharyngeal swabs and antibody tests for COVID-19 (when available) are not 100% reliable, the question of the origin of these strange chilblain-like lesions is still elusive.” Until further studies are available, they emphasized that clinicians should be “alert to the presentation of chilblain-like findings” in children with mild symptoms “as a possible sign of COVID-19 infection.”

All the patients had lesions on their feet or toes, and a 5-year-old boy also had lesions on the right hand. One patient, an 11-year-old girl, had a biopsy that revealed dense lymphocytic perivascular cuffing and periadnexal infiltration.

“The finding of an elevated d-dimer in one of our patients, along with the clinical features suggestive of a vasoocclusive phenomenon, supports consideration of laboratory evaluation for coagulation defects in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic children with acrovasculitis-like findings,” Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote. None of the four cases in Milan required treatment, with three cases resolving within 5 days.

Like the Milan cases, all 22 patients in the Madrid series had foot or toe lesions and three had lesions on the fingers. This larger series also reported more detailed symptoms about the lesions: pruritus in nine patients (41%) and mild pain in seven (32%). A total of 10 patients had systemic symptoms of COVID-19, predominantly cough and rhinorrhea in 9 patients (41%), but 2 (9%) had abdominal pain and diarrhea. These symptoms, the authors said, appeared a median of 14 days (range, 1-28 days) before they developed chilblains.

A total of 19 patients were tested for COVID-19, but only 1 was positive.

This retrospective study also included contact information, with one patient having household contact with a single confirmed case of COVID-19; 12 patients recalled household contact who were considered probable cases of COVID-19, with respiratory symptoms.

Skin biopsies were obtained from the acral lesions in six patients, all showing similar results, although with varying degrees of intensity. All biopsies showed features of lymphocytic vasculopathy. Some cases showed mild dermal and perieccrine mucinosis, lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis, vascular ectasia, red cell extravasation and focal thrombosis described as “mostly confined to scattered papillary dermal capillaries, but also in vessels of the reticular dermis.”

The only treatments Dr. Andina and colleagues reported were oral analgesics for pain and oral antihistamines for pruritus when needed. One patient was given topical corticosteroids and another a short course of oral steroids, both for erythema multiforme.

Dr. Andina and colleagues wrote that the skin lesions in these patients “were unequivocally categorized as chilblains, both clinically and histopathologically,” and, after 7-10 days, began to fade. None of the patients had complications, and had an “excellent outcome,” they noted.

Dr. Colonna and colleagues had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Andina and colleagues provided no disclosure statement.

SOURCES: Colonna C et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1111/pde.14210; Andina D et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1111/pde.14215.

Two reports of chilblain-like lesions in children suspected of having COVID-19 in Spain and Italy have been published, joining other recent reports of such cases in the United States and elsewhere.

These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, from hospitals in Milan and Madrid, published in Pediatric Dermatology.

In the first study, Cristiana Colonna, MD, and colleagues at Hospital Maggiore Polyclinic in Milan described four cases of chilblain-like lesions in children ages 5-11 years with mild COVID-19 symptoms.

In the second, David Andina, MD, and colleagues in the ED and the departments of dermatology and pathology at the Child Jesus University Children’s Hospital in Madrid published a retrospective study of 22 cases in children and adolescents ages 6-17 years who reported to the hospital ED from April 6 to 17, the peak of the pandemic in Madrid.

In all four of the Milan cases, the skin lesions appeared several days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, although all four patients initially tested negative for COVID-19. However, Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote that, “given the fact that the sensitivity and specificity of both nasopharyngeal swabs and antibody tests for COVID-19 (when available) are not 100% reliable, the question of the origin of these strange chilblain-like lesions is still elusive.” Until further studies are available, they emphasized that clinicians should be “alert to the presentation of chilblain-like findings” in children with mild symptoms “as a possible sign of COVID-19 infection.”

All the patients had lesions on their feet or toes, and a 5-year-old boy also had lesions on the right hand. One patient, an 11-year-old girl, had a biopsy that revealed dense lymphocytic perivascular cuffing and periadnexal infiltration.

“The finding of an elevated d-dimer in one of our patients, along with the clinical features suggestive of a vasoocclusive phenomenon, supports consideration of laboratory evaluation for coagulation defects in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic children with acrovasculitis-like findings,” Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote. None of the four cases in Milan required treatment, with three cases resolving within 5 days.

Like the Milan cases, all 22 patients in the Madrid series had foot or toe lesions and three had lesions on the fingers. This larger series also reported more detailed symptoms about the lesions: pruritus in nine patients (41%) and mild pain in seven (32%). A total of 10 patients had systemic symptoms of COVID-19, predominantly cough and rhinorrhea in 9 patients (41%), but 2 (9%) had abdominal pain and diarrhea. These symptoms, the authors said, appeared a median of 14 days (range, 1-28 days) before they developed chilblains.

A total of 19 patients were tested for COVID-19, but only 1 was positive.

This retrospective study also included contact information, with one patient having household contact with a single confirmed case of COVID-19; 12 patients recalled household contact who were considered probable cases of COVID-19, with respiratory symptoms.

Skin biopsies were obtained from the acral lesions in six patients, all showing similar results, although with varying degrees of intensity. All biopsies showed features of lymphocytic vasculopathy. Some cases showed mild dermal and perieccrine mucinosis, lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis, vascular ectasia, red cell extravasation and focal thrombosis described as “mostly confined to scattered papillary dermal capillaries, but also in vessels of the reticular dermis.”

The only treatments Dr. Andina and colleagues reported were oral analgesics for pain and oral antihistamines for pruritus when needed. One patient was given topical corticosteroids and another a short course of oral steroids, both for erythema multiforme.

Dr. Andina and colleagues wrote that the skin lesions in these patients “were unequivocally categorized as chilblains, both clinically and histopathologically,” and, after 7-10 days, began to fade. None of the patients had complications, and had an “excellent outcome,” they noted.

Dr. Colonna and colleagues had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Andina and colleagues provided no disclosure statement.

SOURCES: Colonna C et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1111/pde.14210; Andina D et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1111/pde.14215.

Two reports of chilblain-like lesions in children suspected of having COVID-19 in Spain and Italy have been published, joining other recent reports of such cases in the United States and elsewhere.

These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, from hospitals in Milan and Madrid, published in Pediatric Dermatology.

In the first study, Cristiana Colonna, MD, and colleagues at Hospital Maggiore Polyclinic in Milan described four cases of chilblain-like lesions in children ages 5-11 years with mild COVID-19 symptoms.

In the second, David Andina, MD, and colleagues in the ED and the departments of dermatology and pathology at the Child Jesus University Children’s Hospital in Madrid published a retrospective study of 22 cases in children and adolescents ages 6-17 years who reported to the hospital ED from April 6 to 17, the peak of the pandemic in Madrid.

In all four of the Milan cases, the skin lesions appeared several days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, although all four patients initially tested negative for COVID-19. However, Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote that, “given the fact that the sensitivity and specificity of both nasopharyngeal swabs and antibody tests for COVID-19 (when available) are not 100% reliable, the question of the origin of these strange chilblain-like lesions is still elusive.” Until further studies are available, they emphasized that clinicians should be “alert to the presentation of chilblain-like findings” in children with mild symptoms “as a possible sign of COVID-19 infection.”

All the patients had lesions on their feet or toes, and a 5-year-old boy also had lesions on the right hand. One patient, an 11-year-old girl, had a biopsy that revealed dense lymphocytic perivascular cuffing and periadnexal infiltration.

“The finding of an elevated d-dimer in one of our patients, along with the clinical features suggestive of a vasoocclusive phenomenon, supports consideration of laboratory evaluation for coagulation defects in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic children with acrovasculitis-like findings,” Dr. Colonna and colleagues wrote. None of the four cases in Milan required treatment, with three cases resolving within 5 days.

Like the Milan cases, all 22 patients in the Madrid series had foot or toe lesions and three had lesions on the fingers. This larger series also reported more detailed symptoms about the lesions: pruritus in nine patients (41%) and mild pain in seven (32%). A total of 10 patients had systemic symptoms of COVID-19, predominantly cough and rhinorrhea in 9 patients (41%), but 2 (9%) had abdominal pain and diarrhea. These symptoms, the authors said, appeared a median of 14 days (range, 1-28 days) before they developed chilblains.

A total of 19 patients were tested for COVID-19, but only 1 was positive.

This retrospective study also included contact information, with one patient having household contact with a single confirmed case of COVID-19; 12 patients recalled household contact who were considered probable cases of COVID-19, with respiratory symptoms.

Skin biopsies were obtained from the acral lesions in six patients, all showing similar results, although with varying degrees of intensity. All biopsies showed features of lymphocytic vasculopathy. Some cases showed mild dermal and perieccrine mucinosis, lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis, vascular ectasia, red cell extravasation and focal thrombosis described as “mostly confined to scattered papillary dermal capillaries, but also in vessels of the reticular dermis.”

The only treatments Dr. Andina and colleagues reported were oral analgesics for pain and oral antihistamines for pruritus when needed. One patient was given topical corticosteroids and another a short course of oral steroids, both for erythema multiforme.

Dr. Andina and colleagues wrote that the skin lesions in these patients “were unequivocally categorized as chilblains, both clinically and histopathologically,” and, after 7-10 days, began to fade. None of the patients had complications, and had an “excellent outcome,” they noted.

Dr. Colonna and colleagues had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Andina and colleagues provided no disclosure statement.

SOURCES: Colonna C et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1111/pde.14210; Andina D et al. Ped Derm. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1111/pde.14215.

As a new report shows that over a third of U.S. patients hospitalized with COVID-19 developed acute kidney injury (AKI), and nearly 15% of these patients needed dialysis, experts in the field are calling for more robust research into multiple aspects of this increasingly important issue.

Among 5,449 patients admitted to 13 Northwell Health New York–based hospitals between March and April 2020, 36.6% (1,993) developed AKI.

AKI was strongly linked to the occurrence of respiratory failure and was rarely a severe disease among patients who did not require ventilation – the rate of kidney injury was 89.7% among ventilated patients, compared with 21.7% among other patients.

AKI in COVID-19 was also linked to a poor prognosis: 35% of those who developed AKI had died at the time of publication.

The study includes the largest defined cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients to date with a focus on AKI, says Jamie S. Hirsch, MD, of Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y., and colleagues in their article published online in Kidney International.

The findings track with those of a study of New York hospitals published online in The Lancet. In that dataset, just under a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and needed dialysis.

Both of these studies help solidify the experiences of clinicians on the ground, with many U.S. hospitals in the early phases of the pandemic underestimating the problem of AKI and having to scramble to find enough dialysis machines and dialysate solution to treat the most severely affected patients.

“We hope to learn more about the COVID-19–related AKI in the coming weeks, and that by sharing what we have learned from our patients, other doctors and their patients can benefit,” said senior author of the new study, Kenar D. Jhaveri, MD, associated chief of nephrology at Hofstra/Northwell.

The new report also comes as scientists from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases highlighted the importance of AKI as a sequela of COVID-19 in an editorial published in Diabetes Care.

They, too, said that it is vitally important to better understand what is happening, as more and more hospitals will face COVID-19 patients with this complication.

“The natural history and heterogeneity of the kidney disease caused by COVID-19 need to be unraveled,” one of the authors, Robert A. Star, MD, director of the division of kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases at NIDDK, said in an interview.

Such research is key because “low kidney function is an exclusion criterion in current studies” examining antiviral medications in COVID-19, he said. “Clinical trials are needed to test therapeutic interventions to prevent or treat COVID-19–induced AKI.”

Extremely ill patients develop AKI as their condition deteriorates

Identifying risk factors for the development of AKI in COVID-19 will be critical in helping shed more light on diagnostic and predictive biomarkers, Dr. Star said.

Dr. Hirsch and colleagues said that extremely ill patients often develop kidney failure as their condition deteriorates, and this happens quickly. Indeed, the clearest risk factors for the development of AKI were “the need for ventilator support or vasopressor drug treatment.”

Other independent predictors of AKI were older age, black race, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

Of those on mechanical ventilation overall in the more than 5,000-patient study, almost a quarter (23.2%) developed AKI and needed renal replacement therapy, which consisted of either intermittent or continuous hemodialysis.

Dr. Star and associates wrote that these numbers are important because of the knock-on effects.

“Hemodialysis in critically ill infected patients is associated with significant clotting complications and mortality as well as increased infection risk to staff,” they pointed out.

Dr. Star said that “the incidence rate of AKI reported in this study is higher than what had been previously reported by others in the United States and China and may reflect differences in population demographics, severity of illness, prevalence of comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, patient volume overwhelming hospital capacity, or other factors not yet determined.

“It may be caused by dehydration (volume depletion), heart failure, the inflammatory response to the virus (cytokine storm), respiratory failure, clotting of blood vessels (hypercoagulation), muscle tissue breakdown (rhabdomyolysis), and/or a direct viral infection of the kidney,” he said.

Renal biopsies from patients with AKI may help shed some light

The editorialists went on to say that findings from kidney biopsies of COVID-19 patients with AKI may help shed some light on this condition.

“While difficult to perform, kidney biopsies from patients with early AKI could help us understand the underlying pathophysiologies at the cellular and molecular level and begin to target specific treatments to specific subgroups of patients,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, as part of funding opportunities provided by the National Institutes of Health for COVID-19 research, the NIDDK has published a Notice of Special Interest outlining the most urgent areas in need of research, with one of the focuses being on the kidney.

“As the research community emerges from the crisis situation, there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research to conduct integrated basic, translational, and clinical studies aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how both the current COVID-19 threat and future health threats affect both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” the editorials noted.

The authors of the Diabetes Care editorial have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Astex Pharmaceuticals.

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

As a new report shows that over a third of U.S. patients hospitalized with COVID-19 developed acute kidney injury (AKI), and nearly 15% of these patients needed dialysis, experts in the field are calling for more robust research into multiple aspects of this increasingly important issue.

Among 5,449 patients admitted to 13 Northwell Health New York–based hospitals between March and April 2020, 36.6% (1,993) developed AKI.

AKI was strongly linked to the occurrence of respiratory failure and was rarely a severe disease among patients who did not require ventilation – the rate of kidney injury was 89.7% among ventilated patients, compared with 21.7% among other patients.

AKI in COVID-19 was also linked to a poor prognosis: 35% of those who developed AKI had died at the time of publication.

The study includes the largest defined cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients to date with a focus on AKI, says Jamie S. Hirsch, MD, of Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y., and colleagues in their article published online in Kidney International.

The findings track with those of a study of New York hospitals published online in The Lancet. In that dataset, just under a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and needed dialysis.

Both of these studies help solidify the experiences of clinicians on the ground, with many U.S. hospitals in the early phases of the pandemic underestimating the problem of AKI and having to scramble to find enough dialysis machines and dialysate solution to treat the most severely affected patients.

“We hope to learn more about the COVID-19–related AKI in the coming weeks, and that by sharing what we have learned from our patients, other doctors and their patients can benefit,” said senior author of the new study, Kenar D. Jhaveri, MD, associated chief of nephrology at Hofstra/Northwell.

The new report also comes as scientists from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases highlighted the importance of AKI as a sequela of COVID-19 in an editorial published in Diabetes Care.

They, too, said that it is vitally important to better understand what is happening, as more and more hospitals will face COVID-19 patients with this complication.

“The natural history and heterogeneity of the kidney disease caused by COVID-19 need to be unraveled,” one of the authors, Robert A. Star, MD, director of the division of kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases at NIDDK, said in an interview.

Such research is key because “low kidney function is an exclusion criterion in current studies” examining antiviral medications in COVID-19, he said. “Clinical trials are needed to test therapeutic interventions to prevent or treat COVID-19–induced AKI.”

Extremely ill patients develop AKI as their condition deteriorates

Identifying risk factors for the development of AKI in COVID-19 will be critical in helping shed more light on diagnostic and predictive biomarkers, Dr. Star said.

Dr. Hirsch and colleagues said that extremely ill patients often develop kidney failure as their condition deteriorates, and this happens quickly. Indeed, the clearest risk factors for the development of AKI were “the need for ventilator support or vasopressor drug treatment.”

Other independent predictors of AKI were older age, black race, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

Of those on mechanical ventilation overall in the more than 5,000-patient study, almost a quarter (23.2%) developed AKI and needed renal replacement therapy, which consisted of either intermittent or continuous hemodialysis.

Dr. Star and associates wrote that these numbers are important because of the knock-on effects.

“Hemodialysis in critically ill infected patients is associated with significant clotting complications and mortality as well as increased infection risk to staff,” they pointed out.

Dr. Star said that “the incidence rate of AKI reported in this study is higher than what had been previously reported by others in the United States and China and may reflect differences in population demographics, severity of illness, prevalence of comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, patient volume overwhelming hospital capacity, or other factors not yet determined.

“It may be caused by dehydration (volume depletion), heart failure, the inflammatory response to the virus (cytokine storm), respiratory failure, clotting of blood vessels (hypercoagulation), muscle tissue breakdown (rhabdomyolysis), and/or a direct viral infection of the kidney,” he said.

Renal biopsies from patients with AKI may help shed some light

The editorialists went on to say that findings from kidney biopsies of COVID-19 patients with AKI may help shed some light on this condition.

“While difficult to perform, kidney biopsies from patients with early AKI could help us understand the underlying pathophysiologies at the cellular and molecular level and begin to target specific treatments to specific subgroups of patients,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, as part of funding opportunities provided by the National Institutes of Health for COVID-19 research, the NIDDK has published a Notice of Special Interest outlining the most urgent areas in need of research, with one of the focuses being on the kidney.

“As the research community emerges from the crisis situation, there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research to conduct integrated basic, translational, and clinical studies aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how both the current COVID-19 threat and future health threats affect both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” the editorials noted.

The authors of the Diabetes Care editorial have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Astex Pharmaceuticals.

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

As a new report shows that over a third of U.S. patients hospitalized with COVID-19 developed acute kidney injury (AKI), and nearly 15% of these patients needed dialysis, experts in the field are calling for more robust research into multiple aspects of this increasingly important issue.

Among 5,449 patients admitted to 13 Northwell Health New York–based hospitals between March and April 2020, 36.6% (1,993) developed AKI.

AKI was strongly linked to the occurrence of respiratory failure and was rarely a severe disease among patients who did not require ventilation – the rate of kidney injury was 89.7% among ventilated patients, compared with 21.7% among other patients.

AKI in COVID-19 was also linked to a poor prognosis: 35% of those who developed AKI had died at the time of publication.

The study includes the largest defined cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients to date with a focus on AKI, says Jamie S. Hirsch, MD, of Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y., and colleagues in their article published online in Kidney International.

The findings track with those of a study of New York hospitals published online in The Lancet. In that dataset, just under a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and needed dialysis.

Both of these studies help solidify the experiences of clinicians on the ground, with many U.S. hospitals in the early phases of the pandemic underestimating the problem of AKI and having to scramble to find enough dialysis machines and dialysate solution to treat the most severely affected patients.

“We hope to learn more about the COVID-19–related AKI in the coming weeks, and that by sharing what we have learned from our patients, other doctors and their patients can benefit,” said senior author of the new study, Kenar D. Jhaveri, MD, associated chief of nephrology at Hofstra/Northwell.

The new report also comes as scientists from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases highlighted the importance of AKI as a sequela of COVID-19 in an editorial published in Diabetes Care.

They, too, said that it is vitally important to better understand what is happening, as more and more hospitals will face COVID-19 patients with this complication.

“The natural history and heterogeneity of the kidney disease caused by COVID-19 need to be unraveled,” one of the authors, Robert A. Star, MD, director of the division of kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases at NIDDK, said in an interview.

Such research is key because “low kidney function is an exclusion criterion in current studies” examining antiviral medications in COVID-19, he said. “Clinical trials are needed to test therapeutic interventions to prevent or treat COVID-19–induced AKI.”

Extremely ill patients develop AKI as their condition deteriorates

Identifying risk factors for the development of AKI in COVID-19 will be critical in helping shed more light on diagnostic and predictive biomarkers, Dr. Star said.

Dr. Hirsch and colleagues said that extremely ill patients often develop kidney failure as their condition deteriorates, and this happens quickly. Indeed, the clearest risk factors for the development of AKI were “the need for ventilator support or vasopressor drug treatment.”

Other independent predictors of AKI were older age, black race, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

Of those on mechanical ventilation overall in the more than 5,000-patient study, almost a quarter (23.2%) developed AKI and needed renal replacement therapy, which consisted of either intermittent or continuous hemodialysis.

Dr. Star and associates wrote that these numbers are important because of the knock-on effects.

“Hemodialysis in critically ill infected patients is associated with significant clotting complications and mortality as well as increased infection risk to staff,” they pointed out.

Dr. Star said that “the incidence rate of AKI reported in this study is higher than what had been previously reported by others in the United States and China and may reflect differences in population demographics, severity of illness, prevalence of comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, patient volume overwhelming hospital capacity, or other factors not yet determined.

“It may be caused by dehydration (volume depletion), heart failure, the inflammatory response to the virus (cytokine storm), respiratory failure, clotting of blood vessels (hypercoagulation), muscle tissue breakdown (rhabdomyolysis), and/or a direct viral infection of the kidney,” he said.

Renal biopsies from patients with AKI may help shed some light

The editorialists went on to say that findings from kidney biopsies of COVID-19 patients with AKI may help shed some light on this condition.

“While difficult to perform, kidney biopsies from patients with early AKI could help us understand the underlying pathophysiologies at the cellular and molecular level and begin to target specific treatments to specific subgroups of patients,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, as part of funding opportunities provided by the National Institutes of Health for COVID-19 research, the NIDDK has published a Notice of Special Interest outlining the most urgent areas in need of research, with one of the focuses being on the kidney.

“As the research community emerges from the crisis situation, there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research to conduct integrated basic, translational, and clinical studies aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how both the current COVID-19 threat and future health threats affect both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” the editorials noted.

The authors of the Diabetes Care editorial have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Astex Pharmaceuticals.

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

Pamela Montano, MD, recalls the recent case of a patient with bipolar II disorder who was improving after treatment with medication and therapy when her life was upended by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Pamela Montano

The patient, who is Puerto Rican, lost two cousins to the virus, two of her brothers fell ill, and her sister became sick with coronavirus, said Dr. Montano, director of the Latino Bicultural Clinic at Gouverneur Health in New York. The patient was then left to care for her sister’s toddlers along with the patient’s own children, one of whom has special needs.

“After this happened, it increased her anxiety,” Dr. Montano said in an interview. “She’s not sleeping, and she started having panic attacks. My main concern was how to help her cope.”

Across the country, clinicians who treat mental illness and behavioral disorders in Latino patients are facing similar experiences and challenges associated with COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic response. Current data suggest a disproportionate burden of illness and death from the novel coronavirus among racial and ethnic groups, particularly black and Hispanic patients. The disparities are likely attributable to economic and social conditions more common among such populations, compared with non-Hispanic whites, in addition to isolation from resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A recent New York City Department of Health study based on data that were available in late April found that deaths from COVID-19 were substantially higher for black and Hispanic/Latino patients than for white and Asian patients. The death rate per 100,000 population was 209.4 for blacks, 195.3 for Hispanics/Latinos, 107.7 for whites, and 90.8 for Asians.

“The COVID pandemic has highlighted the structural inequities that affect the Latino population [both] immigrant and nonimmigrant,” said Dr. Montano, a board member of the American Society of Hispanic Psychiatry and the officer of infrastructure and advocacy for the Hispanic Caucus of the American Psychiatric Association. “This includes income inequality, poor nutrition, history of trauma and discrimination, employment issues, quality education, access to technology, and overall access to appropriate cultural linguistic health care.”
 

Navigating challenges

For mental health professionals treating Latino patients, COVID-19 and the pandemic response have generated a range of treatment obstacles.

The transition to telehealth for example, has not been easy for some patients, said Jacqueline Posada, MD, consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow at the Inova Fairfax Hospital–George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and an APA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration minority fellow. Some patients lack Internet services, others forget virtual visits, and some do not have working phones, she said.

“I’ve had to be very flexible,” she said in an interview. “Ideally, I’d love to see everybody via video chat, but a lot of people either don’t have a stable Internet connection or Internet, so I meet the patient where they are. Whatever they have available, that’s what I’m going to use. If they don’t answer on the first call, I will call again at least three to five times in the first 15 minutes to make sure I’m giving them an opportunity to pick up the phone.”

In addition, Dr. Posada has encountered disconnected phones when calling patients for appointments. In such cases, Dr. Posada contacts the patient’s primary care physician to relay medication recommendations in case the patient resurfaces at the clinic.

In other instances, patients are not familiar with video technology, or they must travel to a friend or neighbor’s house to access the technology, said Hector Colón-Rivera, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and medical director of the Asociación Puertorriqueños en Marcha Behavioral Health Program, a nonprofit organization based in the Philadelphia area. Telehealth visits frequently include appearances by children, family members, barking dogs, and other distractions, said Dr. Colón-Rivera, president of the APA Hispanic Caucus.

“We’re seeing things that we didn’t used to see when they came to our office – for good or for bad,” said Dr. Colón-Rivera, an attending telemedicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “It could be a good chance to meet our patient in a different way. Of course, it creates different stressors. If you have five kids on top of you and you’re the only one at home, it’s hard to do therapy.”

Psychiatrists are also seeing prior health conditions in patients exacerbated by COVID-19 fears and new health problems arising from the current pandemic environment. Dr. Posada recalls a patient whom she successfully treated for premenstrual dysphoric disorder who recently descended into severe clinical depression. The patient, from Colombia, was attending school in the United States on a student visa and supporting herself through child care jobs.

“So much of her depression was based on her social circumstance,” Dr. Posada said. “She had lost her job, her sister had lost her job so they were scraping by on her sister’s husband’s income, and the thing that brought her joy, which was going to school and studying so she could make a different life for herself than what her parents had in Colombia, also seemed like it was out of reach.”

Dr. Colón-Rivera recently received a call from a hospital where one of his patients was admitted after becoming delusional and psychotic. The patient was correctly taking medication prescribed by Dr. Colón-Rivera, but her diabetes had become uncontrolled because she was unable to reach her primary care doctor and couldn’t access the pharmacy. Her blood sugar level became elevated, leading to the delusions.

“A patient that was perfectly stable now is unstable,” he said. “Her diet has not been good enough through the pandemic, exacerbating her diabetes. She was admitted to the hospital for delirium. Patients are suffering from changes in their daily structure affecting not only their mental health, but their health in general.”

Compounding of traumas

For many Latino patients, the adverse impacts of the pandemic comes on top of multiple prior traumas, such as violence exposures, discrimination, and economic issues, said Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, chief of psychiatry and vice chair at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. A 2017 analysis found that nearly four in five Latino youth face at least one traumatic childhood experience, like poverty or abuse, and that about 29% of Latino youth experience four or more of these traumas.

Immigrants in particular, may have faced trauma in their home country and/or immigration trauma, Dr. Fortuna added. A 2013 study on immigrant Latino adolescents for example, found that 29% of foreign-born adolescents and 34% of foreign-born parents experienced trauma during the migration process (Int Migr Rev. 2013 Dec;47(4):10).

“All of these things are cumulative,” Dr. Fortuna said. “Then when you’re hit with a pandemic, all of the disparities that you already have and all the stress that you already have are compounded. This is for the kids, too, who have been exposed to a lot of stressors and now maybe have family members that have been ill or have died. All of these things definitely put people at risk for increased depression [and] the worsening of any preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder. We’ve seen this in previous disasters, and I expect that’s what we’re going to see more of with the COVID-19 pandemic.”

At the same time, a central cultural value of many Latinos is family unity, Dr. Montano said, a foundation that is now being strained by social distancing and severed connections.

“This has separated many families,” she said. “There has been a lot of loneliness and grief.”

Mistrust and fear toward the government, public agencies, and even the health system itself act as further hurdles for some Latinos in the face of COVID-19. In areas with large immigrant populations such as San Francisco, Dr. Fortuna noted, it’s not uncommon for undocumented patients to avoid accessing medical care and social services, or visiting emergency departments for needed care for fear of drawing attention to themselves or possible detainment.

“The fact that so many people showed up at our hospital so ill and ended up in the ICU – that could be a combination of factors. Because the population has high rates of diabetes and hypertension, that might have put people at increased risk for severe illness,” she said. “But some people may have been holding out for care because they wanted to avoid being in places out of fear of immigration scrutiny.”
 

Overcoming language barriers

Compounding the challenging pandemic landscape for Latino patients is the fact that many state resources about COVID-19 have not been translated to Spanish, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. He was troubled recently when he went to several state websites and found limited to no information in Spanish about the coronavirus. Some data about COVID-19 from the federal government were not translated to Spanish until officials received pushback, he added. Even now, press releases and other information disseminated by the federal government about the virus appear to be translated by an automated service – and lack sense and context.

The state agencies in Pennsylvania have been alerted to the absence of Spanish information, but change has been slow, he noted.

“In Philadelphia, 23% speaks a language other than English,” he said. “So we missed a lot of critical information that could have helped to avoid spreading the illness and access support.”

Dr. Fortuna said that California has done better with providing COVID-19–related information in Spanish, compared with some other states, but misinformation about the virus and lingering myths have still been a problem among the Latino community. The University of California, San Francisco, recently launched a Latino Task Force resource website for the Latino community that includes information in English, Spanish, and Yucatec Maya about COVID-19, health and wellness tips, and resources for various assistance needs.

The concerning lack of COVID-19 information translated to Spanish led Dr. Montano to start a Facebook page in Spanish about mental health tips and guidance for managing COVID-19–related issues. She and her team of clinicians share information, videos, relaxation exercises, and community resources on the page, among other posts. “There is also general info and recommendations about COVID-19 that I think can be useful for the community,” she said. “The idea is that patients, the general community, and providers can have share information, hope messages, and ask questions in Spanish.”

Feeling ‘helpless’

A central part of caring for Latino patients during the COVID-19 crisis has been referring them to outside agencies and social services, psychiatrists say. But finding the right resources amid a pandemic and ensuring that patients connect with the correct aid has been an uphill battle.

“We sometimes feel like our hands are tied,” Dr. Colón-Rivera said. “Sometimes, we need to call a place to bring food. Some of the state agencies and nonprofits don’t have delivery systems, so the patient has to go pick up for food or medication. Some of our patients don’t want to go outside. Some do not have cars.”

As a clinician, it can be easy to feel helpless when trying to navigate new challenges posed by the pandemic in addition to other longstanding barriers, Dr. Posada said.

“Already, mental health disorders are so influenced by social situations like poverty, job insecurity, or family issues, and now it just seems those obstacles are even more insurmountable,” she said. “At the end of the day, I can feel like: ‘Did I make a difference?’ That’s a big struggle.”

Dr. Montano’s team, which includes psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, have come to rely on virtual debriefings to vent, express frustrations, and support one another, she said. She also recently joined a virtual mind-body skills group as a participant.

“I recognize the importance of getting additional support and ways to alleviate burnout,” she said. “We need to take care of ourselves or we won’t be able to help others.”

Focusing on resilience during the current crisis can be beneficial for both patients and providers in coping and drawing strength, Dr. Posada said.

“When it comes to fostering resilience during times of hardship, I think it’s most helpful to reflect on what skills or attributes have helped during past crises and apply those now – whether it’s turning to comfort from close relationships, looking to religion and spirituality, practicing self-care like rest or exercise, or really tapping into one’s purpose and reason for practicing psychiatry and being a physician,” she said. “The same advice goes for clinicians: We’ve all been through hard times in the past, it’s part of the human condition and we’ve also witnessed a lot of suffering in our patients, so now is the time to practice those skills that have gotten us through hard times in the past.”
 

Learning lessons from COVID-19

Despite the challenges with moving to telehealth, Dr. Fortuna said the tool has proved beneficial overall for mental health care. For Dr. Fortuna’s team for example, telehealth by phone has decreased the no-show rate, compared with clinic visits, and improved care access.

“We need to figure out how to maintain that,” she said. “If we can build ways for equity and access to Internet, especially equipment, I think that’s going to help.”

In addition, more data are needed about the ways in which COVID-19 is affecting Latino patients, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. Mortality statistics have been published, but information is needed about the rates of infection and manifestation of illness.

Most importantly, the COVID-19 crisis has emphasized the critical need to address and improve the underlying inequity issues among Latino patients, psychiatrists say.

“We really need to think about how there can be partnerships, in terms of community-based Latino business and leaders, multisector resources, trying to think about how we can improve conditions both work and safety for Latinos,” Dr. Fortuna said. “How can schools get support in integrating mental health and support for families, especially now after COVID-19? And really looking at some of these underlying inequities that are the underpinnings of why people were at risk for the disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

[email protected]

Pamela Montano, MD, recalls the recent case of a patient with bipolar II disorder who was improving after treatment with medication and therapy when her life was upended by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Pamela Montano

The patient, who is Puerto Rican, lost two cousins to the virus, two of her brothers fell ill, and her sister became sick with coronavirus, said Dr. Montano, director of the Latino Bicultural Clinic at Gouverneur Health in New York. The patient was then left to care for her sister’s toddlers along with the patient’s own children, one of whom has special needs.

“After this happened, it increased her anxiety,” Dr. Montano said in an interview. “She’s not sleeping, and she started having panic attacks. My main concern was how to help her cope.”

Across the country, clinicians who treat mental illness and behavioral disorders in Latino patients are facing similar experiences and challenges associated with COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic response. Current data suggest a disproportionate burden of illness and death from the novel coronavirus among racial and ethnic groups, particularly black and Hispanic patients. The disparities are likely attributable to economic and social conditions more common among such populations, compared with non-Hispanic whites, in addition to isolation from resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A recent New York City Department of Health study based on data that were available in late April found that deaths from COVID-19 were substantially higher for black and Hispanic/Latino patients than for white and Asian patients. The death rate per 100,000 population was 209.4 for blacks, 195.3 for Hispanics/Latinos, 107.7 for whites, and 90.8 for Asians.

“The COVID pandemic has highlighted the structural inequities that affect the Latino population [both] immigrant and nonimmigrant,” said Dr. Montano, a board member of the American Society of Hispanic Psychiatry and the officer of infrastructure and advocacy for the Hispanic Caucus of the American Psychiatric Association. “This includes income inequality, poor nutrition, history of trauma and discrimination, employment issues, quality education, access to technology, and overall access to appropriate cultural linguistic health care.”
 

Navigating challenges

For mental health professionals treating Latino patients, COVID-19 and the pandemic response have generated a range of treatment obstacles.

The transition to telehealth for example, has not been easy for some patients, said Jacqueline Posada, MD, consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow at the Inova Fairfax Hospital–George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and an APA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration minority fellow. Some patients lack Internet services, others forget virtual visits, and some do not have working phones, she said.

“I’ve had to be very flexible,” she said in an interview. “Ideally, I’d love to see everybody via video chat, but a lot of people either don’t have a stable Internet connection or Internet, so I meet the patient where they are. Whatever they have available, that’s what I’m going to use. If they don’t answer on the first call, I will call again at least three to five times in the first 15 minutes to make sure I’m giving them an opportunity to pick up the phone.”

In addition, Dr. Posada has encountered disconnected phones when calling patients for appointments. In such cases, Dr. Posada contacts the patient’s primary care physician to relay medication recommendations in case the patient resurfaces at the clinic.

In other instances, patients are not familiar with video technology, or they must travel to a friend or neighbor’s house to access the technology, said Hector Colón-Rivera, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and medical director of the Asociación Puertorriqueños en Marcha Behavioral Health Program, a nonprofit organization based in the Philadelphia area. Telehealth visits frequently include appearances by children, family members, barking dogs, and other distractions, said Dr. Colón-Rivera, president of the APA Hispanic Caucus.

“We’re seeing things that we didn’t used to see when they came to our office – for good or for bad,” said Dr. Colón-Rivera, an attending telemedicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “It could be a good chance to meet our patient in a different way. Of course, it creates different stressors. If you have five kids on top of you and you’re the only one at home, it’s hard to do therapy.”

Psychiatrists are also seeing prior health conditions in patients exacerbated by COVID-19 fears and new health problems arising from the current pandemic environment. Dr. Posada recalls a patient whom she successfully treated for premenstrual dysphoric disorder who recently descended into severe clinical depression. The patient, from Colombia, was attending school in the United States on a student visa and supporting herself through child care jobs.

“So much of her depression was based on her social circumstance,” Dr. Posada said. “She had lost her job, her sister had lost her job so they were scraping by on her sister’s husband’s income, and the thing that brought her joy, which was going to school and studying so she could make a different life for herself than what her parents had in Colombia, also seemed like it was out of reach.”

Dr. Colón-Rivera recently received a call from a hospital where one of his patients was admitted after becoming delusional and psychotic. The patient was correctly taking medication prescribed by Dr. Colón-Rivera, but her diabetes had become uncontrolled because she was unable to reach her primary care doctor and couldn’t access the pharmacy. Her blood sugar level became elevated, leading to the delusions.

“A patient that was perfectly stable now is unstable,” he said. “Her diet has not been good enough through the pandemic, exacerbating her diabetes. She was admitted to the hospital for delirium. Patients are suffering from changes in their daily structure affecting not only their mental health, but their health in general.”

Compounding of traumas

For many Latino patients, the adverse impacts of the pandemic comes on top of multiple prior traumas, such as violence exposures, discrimination, and economic issues, said Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, chief of psychiatry and vice chair at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. A 2017 analysis found that nearly four in five Latino youth face at least one traumatic childhood experience, like poverty or abuse, and that about 29% of Latino youth experience four or more of these traumas.

Immigrants in particular, may have faced trauma in their home country and/or immigration trauma, Dr. Fortuna added. A 2013 study on immigrant Latino adolescents for example, found that 29% of foreign-born adolescents and 34% of foreign-born parents experienced trauma during the migration process (Int Migr Rev. 2013 Dec;47(4):10).

“All of these things are cumulative,” Dr. Fortuna said. “Then when you’re hit with a pandemic, all of the disparities that you already have and all the stress that you already have are compounded. This is for the kids, too, who have been exposed to a lot of stressors and now maybe have family members that have been ill or have died. All of these things definitely put people at risk for increased depression [and] the worsening of any preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder. We’ve seen this in previous disasters, and I expect that’s what we’re going to see more of with the COVID-19 pandemic.”

At the same time, a central cultural value of many Latinos is family unity, Dr. Montano said, a foundation that is now being strained by social distancing and severed connections.

“This has separated many families,” she said. “There has been a lot of loneliness and grief.”

Mistrust and fear toward the government, public agencies, and even the health system itself act as further hurdles for some Latinos in the face of COVID-19. In areas with large immigrant populations such as San Francisco, Dr. Fortuna noted, it’s not uncommon for undocumented patients to avoid accessing medical care and social services, or visiting emergency departments for needed care for fear of drawing attention to themselves or possible detainment.

“The fact that so many people showed up at our hospital so ill and ended up in the ICU – that could be a combination of factors. Because the population has high rates of diabetes and hypertension, that might have put people at increased risk for severe illness,” she said. “But some people may have been holding out for care because they wanted to avoid being in places out of fear of immigration scrutiny.”
 

Overcoming language barriers

Compounding the challenging pandemic landscape for Latino patients is the fact that many state resources about COVID-19 have not been translated to Spanish, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. He was troubled recently when he went to several state websites and found limited to no information in Spanish about the coronavirus. Some data about COVID-19 from the federal government were not translated to Spanish until officials received pushback, he added. Even now, press releases and other information disseminated by the federal government about the virus appear to be translated by an automated service – and lack sense and context.

The state agencies in Pennsylvania have been alerted to the absence of Spanish information, but change has been slow, he noted.

“In Philadelphia, 23% speaks a language other than English,” he said. “So we missed a lot of critical information that could have helped to avoid spreading the illness and access support.”

Dr. Fortuna said that California has done better with providing COVID-19–related information in Spanish, compared with some other states, but misinformation about the virus and lingering myths have still been a problem among the Latino community. The University of California, San Francisco, recently launched a Latino Task Force resource website for the Latino community that includes information in English, Spanish, and Yucatec Maya about COVID-19, health and wellness tips, and resources for various assistance needs.

The concerning lack of COVID-19 information translated to Spanish led Dr. Montano to start a Facebook page in Spanish about mental health tips and guidance for managing COVID-19–related issues. She and her team of clinicians share information, videos, relaxation exercises, and community resources on the page, among other posts. “There is also general info and recommendations about COVID-19 that I think can be useful for the community,” she said. “The idea is that patients, the general community, and providers can have share information, hope messages, and ask questions in Spanish.”

Feeling ‘helpless’

A central part of caring for Latino patients during the COVID-19 crisis has been referring them to outside agencies and social services, psychiatrists say. But finding the right resources amid a pandemic and ensuring that patients connect with the correct aid has been an uphill battle.

“We sometimes feel like our hands are tied,” Dr. Colón-Rivera said. “Sometimes, we need to call a place to bring food. Some of the state agencies and nonprofits don’t have delivery systems, so the patient has to go pick up for food or medication. Some of our patients don’t want to go outside. Some do not have cars.”

As a clinician, it can be easy to feel helpless when trying to navigate new challenges posed by the pandemic in addition to other longstanding barriers, Dr. Posada said.

“Already, mental health disorders are so influenced by social situations like poverty, job insecurity, or family issues, and now it just seems those obstacles are even more insurmountable,” she said. “At the end of the day, I can feel like: ‘Did I make a difference?’ That’s a big struggle.”

Dr. Montano’s team, which includes psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, have come to rely on virtual debriefings to vent, express frustrations, and support one another, she said. She also recently joined a virtual mind-body skills group as a participant.

“I recognize the importance of getting additional support and ways to alleviate burnout,” she said. “We need to take care of ourselves or we won’t be able to help others.”

Focusing on resilience during the current crisis can be beneficial for both patients and providers in coping and drawing strength, Dr. Posada said.

“When it comes to fostering resilience during times of hardship, I think it’s most helpful to reflect on what skills or attributes have helped during past crises and apply those now – whether it’s turning to comfort from close relationships, looking to religion and spirituality, practicing self-care like rest or exercise, or really tapping into one’s purpose and reason for practicing psychiatry and being a physician,” she said. “The same advice goes for clinicians: We’ve all been through hard times in the past, it’s part of the human condition and we’ve also witnessed a lot of suffering in our patients, so now is the time to practice those skills that have gotten us through hard times in the past.”
 

Learning lessons from COVID-19

Despite the challenges with moving to telehealth, Dr. Fortuna said the tool has proved beneficial overall for mental health care. For Dr. Fortuna’s team for example, telehealth by phone has decreased the no-show rate, compared with clinic visits, and improved care access.

“We need to figure out how to maintain that,” she said. “If we can build ways for equity and access to Internet, especially equipment, I think that’s going to help.”

In addition, more data are needed about the ways in which COVID-19 is affecting Latino patients, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. Mortality statistics have been published, but information is needed about the rates of infection and manifestation of illness.

Most importantly, the COVID-19 crisis has emphasized the critical need to address and improve the underlying inequity issues among Latino patients, psychiatrists say.

“We really need to think about how there can be partnerships, in terms of community-based Latino business and leaders, multisector resources, trying to think about how we can improve conditions both work and safety for Latinos,” Dr. Fortuna said. “How can schools get support in integrating mental health and support for families, especially now after COVID-19? And really looking at some of these underlying inequities that are the underpinnings of why people were at risk for the disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

[email protected]

Pamela Montano, MD, recalls the recent case of a patient with bipolar II disorder who was improving after treatment with medication and therapy when her life was upended by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Pamela Montano

The patient, who is Puerto Rican, lost two cousins to the virus, two of her brothers fell ill, and her sister became sick with coronavirus, said Dr. Montano, director of the Latino Bicultural Clinic at Gouverneur Health in New York. The patient was then left to care for her sister’s toddlers along with the patient’s own children, one of whom has special needs.

“After this happened, it increased her anxiety,” Dr. Montano said in an interview. “She’s not sleeping, and she started having panic attacks. My main concern was how to help her cope.”

Across the country, clinicians who treat mental illness and behavioral disorders in Latino patients are facing similar experiences and challenges associated with COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic response. Current data suggest a disproportionate burden of illness and death from the novel coronavirus among racial and ethnic groups, particularly black and Hispanic patients. The disparities are likely attributable to economic and social conditions more common among such populations, compared with non-Hispanic whites, in addition to isolation from resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A recent New York City Department of Health study based on data that were available in late April found that deaths from COVID-19 were substantially higher for black and Hispanic/Latino patients than for white and Asian patients. The death rate per 100,000 population was 209.4 for blacks, 195.3 for Hispanics/Latinos, 107.7 for whites, and 90.8 for Asians.

“The COVID pandemic has highlighted the structural inequities that affect the Latino population [both] immigrant and nonimmigrant,” said Dr. Montano, a board member of the American Society of Hispanic Psychiatry and the officer of infrastructure and advocacy for the Hispanic Caucus of the American Psychiatric Association. “This includes income inequality, poor nutrition, history of trauma and discrimination, employment issues, quality education, access to technology, and overall access to appropriate cultural linguistic health care.”
 

Navigating challenges

For mental health professionals treating Latino patients, COVID-19 and the pandemic response have generated a range of treatment obstacles.

The transition to telehealth for example, has not been easy for some patients, said Jacqueline Posada, MD, consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow at the Inova Fairfax Hospital–George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and an APA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration minority fellow. Some patients lack Internet services, others forget virtual visits, and some do not have working phones, she said.

“I’ve had to be very flexible,” she said in an interview. “Ideally, I’d love to see everybody via video chat, but a lot of people either don’t have a stable Internet connection or Internet, so I meet the patient where they are. Whatever they have available, that’s what I’m going to use. If they don’t answer on the first call, I will call again at least three to five times in the first 15 minutes to make sure I’m giving them an opportunity to pick up the phone.”

In addition, Dr. Posada has encountered disconnected phones when calling patients for appointments. In such cases, Dr. Posada contacts the patient’s primary care physician to relay medication recommendations in case the patient resurfaces at the clinic.

In other instances, patients are not familiar with video technology, or they must travel to a friend or neighbor’s house to access the technology, said Hector Colón-Rivera, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and medical director of the Asociación Puertorriqueños en Marcha Behavioral Health Program, a nonprofit organization based in the Philadelphia area. Telehealth visits frequently include appearances by children, family members, barking dogs, and other distractions, said Dr. Colón-Rivera, president of the APA Hispanic Caucus.

“We’re seeing things that we didn’t used to see when they came to our office – for good or for bad,” said Dr. Colón-Rivera, an attending telemedicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “It could be a good chance to meet our patient in a different way. Of course, it creates different stressors. If you have five kids on top of you and you’re the only one at home, it’s hard to do therapy.”

Psychiatrists are also seeing prior health conditions in patients exacerbated by COVID-19 fears and new health problems arising from the current pandemic environment. Dr. Posada recalls a patient whom she successfully treated for premenstrual dysphoric disorder who recently descended into severe clinical depression. The patient, from Colombia, was attending school in the United States on a student visa and supporting herself through child care jobs.

“So much of her depression was based on her social circumstance,” Dr. Posada said. “She had lost her job, her sister had lost her job so they were scraping by on her sister’s husband’s income, and the thing that brought her joy, which was going to school and studying so she could make a different life for herself than what her parents had in Colombia, also seemed like it was out of reach.”

Dr. Colón-Rivera recently received a call from a hospital where one of his patients was admitted after becoming delusional and psychotic. The patient was correctly taking medication prescribed by Dr. Colón-Rivera, but her diabetes had become uncontrolled because she was unable to reach her primary care doctor and couldn’t access the pharmacy. Her blood sugar level became elevated, leading to the delusions.

“A patient that was perfectly stable now is unstable,” he said. “Her diet has not been good enough through the pandemic, exacerbating her diabetes. She was admitted to the hospital for delirium. Patients are suffering from changes in their daily structure affecting not only their mental health, but their health in general.”

Compounding of traumas

For many Latino patients, the adverse impacts of the pandemic comes on top of multiple prior traumas, such as violence exposures, discrimination, and economic issues, said Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, chief of psychiatry and vice chair at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. A 2017 analysis found that nearly four in five Latino youth face at least one traumatic childhood experience, like poverty or abuse, and that about 29% of Latino youth experience four or more of these traumas.

Immigrants in particular, may have faced trauma in their home country and/or immigration trauma, Dr. Fortuna added. A 2013 study on immigrant Latino adolescents for example, found that 29% of foreign-born adolescents and 34% of foreign-born parents experienced trauma during the migration process (Int Migr Rev. 2013 Dec;47(4):10).

“All of these things are cumulative,” Dr. Fortuna said. “Then when you’re hit with a pandemic, all of the disparities that you already have and all the stress that you already have are compounded. This is for the kids, too, who have been exposed to a lot of stressors and now maybe have family members that have been ill or have died. All of these things definitely put people at risk for increased depression [and] the worsening of any preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder. We’ve seen this in previous disasters, and I expect that’s what we’re going to see more of with the COVID-19 pandemic.”

At the same time, a central cultural value of many Latinos is family unity, Dr. Montano said, a foundation that is now being strained by social distancing and severed connections.

“This has separated many families,” she said. “There has been a lot of loneliness and grief.”

Mistrust and fear toward the government, public agencies, and even the health system itself act as further hurdles for some Latinos in the face of COVID-19. In areas with large immigrant populations such as San Francisco, Dr. Fortuna noted, it’s not uncommon for undocumented patients to avoid accessing medical care and social services, or visiting emergency departments for needed care for fear of drawing attention to themselves or possible detainment.

“The fact that so many people showed up at our hospital so ill and ended up in the ICU – that could be a combination of factors. Because the population has high rates of diabetes and hypertension, that might have put people at increased risk for severe illness,” she said. “But some people may have been holding out for care because they wanted to avoid being in places out of fear of immigration scrutiny.”
 

Overcoming language barriers

Compounding the challenging pandemic landscape for Latino patients is the fact that many state resources about COVID-19 have not been translated to Spanish, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. He was troubled recently when he went to several state websites and found limited to no information in Spanish about the coronavirus. Some data about COVID-19 from the federal government were not translated to Spanish until officials received pushback, he added. Even now, press releases and other information disseminated by the federal government about the virus appear to be translated by an automated service – and lack sense and context.

The state agencies in Pennsylvania have been alerted to the absence of Spanish information, but change has been slow, he noted.

“In Philadelphia, 23% speaks a language other than English,” he said. “So we missed a lot of critical information that could have helped to avoid spreading the illness and access support.”

Dr. Fortuna said that California has done better with providing COVID-19–related information in Spanish, compared with some other states, but misinformation about the virus and lingering myths have still been a problem among the Latino community. The University of California, San Francisco, recently launched a Latino Task Force resource website for the Latino community that includes information in English, Spanish, and Yucatec Maya about COVID-19, health and wellness tips, and resources for various assistance needs.

The concerning lack of COVID-19 information translated to Spanish led Dr. Montano to start a Facebook page in Spanish about mental health tips and guidance for managing COVID-19–related issues. She and her team of clinicians share information, videos, relaxation exercises, and community resources on the page, among other posts. “There is also general info and recommendations about COVID-19 that I think can be useful for the community,” she said. “The idea is that patients, the general community, and providers can have share information, hope messages, and ask questions in Spanish.”

Feeling ‘helpless’

A central part of caring for Latino patients during the COVID-19 crisis has been referring them to outside agencies and social services, psychiatrists say. But finding the right resources amid a pandemic and ensuring that patients connect with the correct aid has been an uphill battle.

“We sometimes feel like our hands are tied,” Dr. Colón-Rivera said. “Sometimes, we need to call a place to bring food. Some of the state agencies and nonprofits don’t have delivery systems, so the patient has to go pick up for food or medication. Some of our patients don’t want to go outside. Some do not have cars.”

As a clinician, it can be easy to feel helpless when trying to navigate new challenges posed by the pandemic in addition to other longstanding barriers, Dr. Posada said.

“Already, mental health disorders are so influenced by social situations like poverty, job insecurity, or family issues, and now it just seems those obstacles are even more insurmountable,” she said. “At the end of the day, I can feel like: ‘Did I make a difference?’ That’s a big struggle.”

Dr. Montano’s team, which includes psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, have come to rely on virtual debriefings to vent, express frustrations, and support one another, she said. She also recently joined a virtual mind-body skills group as a participant.

“I recognize the importance of getting additional support and ways to alleviate burnout,” she said. “We need to take care of ourselves or we won’t be able to help others.”

Focusing on resilience during the current crisis can be beneficial for both patients and providers in coping and drawing strength, Dr. Posada said.

“When it comes to fostering resilience during times of hardship, I think it’s most helpful to reflect on what skills or attributes have helped during past crises and apply those now – whether it’s turning to comfort from close relationships, looking to religion and spirituality, practicing self-care like rest or exercise, or really tapping into one’s purpose and reason for practicing psychiatry and being a physician,” she said. “The same advice goes for clinicians: We’ve all been through hard times in the past, it’s part of the human condition and we’ve also witnessed a lot of suffering in our patients, so now is the time to practice those skills that have gotten us through hard times in the past.”
 

Learning lessons from COVID-19

Despite the challenges with moving to telehealth, Dr. Fortuna said the tool has proved beneficial overall for mental health care. For Dr. Fortuna’s team for example, telehealth by phone has decreased the no-show rate, compared with clinic visits, and improved care access.

“We need to figure out how to maintain that,” she said. “If we can build ways for equity and access to Internet, especially equipment, I think that’s going to help.”

In addition, more data are needed about the ways in which COVID-19 is affecting Latino patients, Dr. Colón-Rivera said. Mortality statistics have been published, but information is needed about the rates of infection and manifestation of illness.

Most importantly, the COVID-19 crisis has emphasized the critical need to address and improve the underlying inequity issues among Latino patients, psychiatrists say.

“We really need to think about how there can be partnerships, in terms of community-based Latino business and leaders, multisector resources, trying to think about how we can improve conditions both work and safety for Latinos,” Dr. Fortuna said. “How can schools get support in integrating mental health and support for families, especially now after COVID-19? And really looking at some of these underlying inequities that are the underpinnings of why people were at risk for the disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

[email protected]

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

Biomarkers for inflammation and thrombosis may predict deaths from COVID-19 among critically ill patients, researchers say.

Courtesy NIAID

Their prospective cohort study of 1150 patients hospitalized with the disease in New York City also revealed a high proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, and confirmed high rates of critical illness and mortality.

“Of particular interest is the finding that over three quarters of critically ill patients required a ventilator and almost one third required renal dialysis support,” Max O’Donnell, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City, said in a press release.

O’Donnell and colleagues published the results of their study online today in The Lancet. It is the largest prospective cohort study published in the United States, they said.

“Although the clinical spectrum of disease has been characterised in reports from China and Italy, until now, detailed understanding of how the virus is affecting critically ill patients in the US has been limited to reports from a small number of cases,” said Natalie Yip, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University.

In the cohort, drawn from two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals, the researchers focused on the 257 (22%) patients who required intensive care. When they estimated inflammation through interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations and thrombosis through D-dimer concentrations, they found a 10% increased risk for death with every 10% increase of IL-6 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.20) or D-dimer concentration (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01–1.19).

“The association of mortality with higher concentrations of IL-6 and d-dimer is particularly relevant for two reasons,” write Giacomo Grasselli, from the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospediale Maggiore Policlinico, and Alberto Zanella, from the University of Milan, Italy, in an accompanying commentary.

“First, it confirms the key pathogenic role played by the activation of systemic inflammation and endothelial-vascular damage in the development of organ dysfunction,” they write. “Second, it provides the rationale for the design of clinical trials for measuring the efficacy of treatment with immunomodulating and anticoagulant drugs.”

Seventeen percent of patients received interleukin receptor antagonists and 26% received corticosteroids, but the authors did not report any data on the effects of these treatments, or any data about anticoagulant therapies administered.
 

Severe disease common

The study also highlighted a high proportion of ethnic and racial minorities. Sixty-two percent of the critically ill patients were Hispanic or Latinx, 19% Black, 32% White, and 3% Asian.

Their median age was 62 years and 67% were men. Eighty-two percent had at least one chronic illness, most commonly hypertension (63%), followed by diabetes (36%). Forty-six percent were obese.

As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) of the critically ill patients had died following a median of 9 days (interquartile range (IQR), 5–15) in the hospital and 94 (37%) remained hospitalized. Of the 203 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, 84 (41%) had died.

The poor prognosis of patients requiring ventilation is consistent with data from a report on patients treated in National Health Service intensive care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland through May 15. Overall, 11,292 patients with COVID-19 required critical care, and 4855 needed advanced respiratory support. Approximately half of the patients receiving mechanical ventilation had died 30 days after starting critical care.

In the New York study, patients spent an average of 18 days on a ventilator (IQR, 9–28 days). This is a longer period than reported in smaller studies of cases from Washington state, but corresponds with a recent report from Italy, the researchers said.

Remarkably, O’Donnell and colleagues report that almost a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and required dialysis.

Mortality was associated with several baseline factors, including older age (aHR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09–1.57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08–2·86), and chronic pulmonary disease (aHR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.48–5.84).

Authors of the New York study reported financial relationships to ICE Neurosystems, ALung Technologies, Baxter, BREETHE, Xenios, Hemovent, Gilead Sciences, Amazon, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. Grasselli reports personal fees from Biotest, Draeger, Fisher & Paykel, Maquet, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer, all outside the area of work commented on here. Zanella has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Biomarkers for inflammation and thrombosis may predict deaths from COVID-19 among critically ill patients, researchers say.

Courtesy NIAID

Their prospective cohort study of 1150 patients hospitalized with the disease in New York City also revealed a high proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, and confirmed high rates of critical illness and mortality.

“Of particular interest is the finding that over three quarters of critically ill patients required a ventilator and almost one third required renal dialysis support,” Max O’Donnell, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City, said in a press release.

O’Donnell and colleagues published the results of their study online today in The Lancet. It is the largest prospective cohort study published in the United States, they said.

“Although the clinical spectrum of disease has been characterised in reports from China and Italy, until now, detailed understanding of how the virus is affecting critically ill patients in the US has been limited to reports from a small number of cases,” said Natalie Yip, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University.

In the cohort, drawn from two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals, the researchers focused on the 257 (22%) patients who required intensive care. When they estimated inflammation through interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations and thrombosis through D-dimer concentrations, they found a 10% increased risk for death with every 10% increase of IL-6 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.20) or D-dimer concentration (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01–1.19).

“The association of mortality with higher concentrations of IL-6 and d-dimer is particularly relevant for two reasons,” write Giacomo Grasselli, from the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospediale Maggiore Policlinico, and Alberto Zanella, from the University of Milan, Italy, in an accompanying commentary.

“First, it confirms the key pathogenic role played by the activation of systemic inflammation and endothelial-vascular damage in the development of organ dysfunction,” they write. “Second, it provides the rationale for the design of clinical trials for measuring the efficacy of treatment with immunomodulating and anticoagulant drugs.”

Seventeen percent of patients received interleukin receptor antagonists and 26% received corticosteroids, but the authors did not report any data on the effects of these treatments, or any data about anticoagulant therapies administered.
 

Severe disease common

The study also highlighted a high proportion of ethnic and racial minorities. Sixty-two percent of the critically ill patients were Hispanic or Latinx, 19% Black, 32% White, and 3% Asian.

Their median age was 62 years and 67% were men. Eighty-two percent had at least one chronic illness, most commonly hypertension (63%), followed by diabetes (36%). Forty-six percent were obese.

As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) of the critically ill patients had died following a median of 9 days (interquartile range (IQR), 5–15) in the hospital and 94 (37%) remained hospitalized. Of the 203 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, 84 (41%) had died.

The poor prognosis of patients requiring ventilation is consistent with data from a report on patients treated in National Health Service intensive care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland through May 15. Overall, 11,292 patients with COVID-19 required critical care, and 4855 needed advanced respiratory support. Approximately half of the patients receiving mechanical ventilation had died 30 days after starting critical care.

In the New York study, patients spent an average of 18 days on a ventilator (IQR, 9–28 days). This is a longer period than reported in smaller studies of cases from Washington state, but corresponds with a recent report from Italy, the researchers said.

Remarkably, O’Donnell and colleagues report that almost a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and required dialysis.

Mortality was associated with several baseline factors, including older age (aHR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09–1.57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08–2·86), and chronic pulmonary disease (aHR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.48–5.84).

Authors of the New York study reported financial relationships to ICE Neurosystems, ALung Technologies, Baxter, BREETHE, Xenios, Hemovent, Gilead Sciences, Amazon, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. Grasselli reports personal fees from Biotest, Draeger, Fisher & Paykel, Maquet, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer, all outside the area of work commented on here. Zanella has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Biomarkers for inflammation and thrombosis may predict deaths from COVID-19 among critically ill patients, researchers say.

Courtesy NIAID

Their prospective cohort study of 1150 patients hospitalized with the disease in New York City also revealed a high proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, and confirmed high rates of critical illness and mortality.

“Of particular interest is the finding that over three quarters of critically ill patients required a ventilator and almost one third required renal dialysis support,” Max O’Donnell, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City, said in a press release.

O’Donnell and colleagues published the results of their study online today in The Lancet. It is the largest prospective cohort study published in the United States, they said.

“Although the clinical spectrum of disease has been characterised in reports from China and Italy, until now, detailed understanding of how the virus is affecting critically ill patients in the US has been limited to reports from a small number of cases,” said Natalie Yip, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University.

In the cohort, drawn from two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals, the researchers focused on the 257 (22%) patients who required intensive care. When they estimated inflammation through interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations and thrombosis through D-dimer concentrations, they found a 10% increased risk for death with every 10% increase of IL-6 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.20) or D-dimer concentration (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01–1.19).

“The association of mortality with higher concentrations of IL-6 and d-dimer is particularly relevant for two reasons,” write Giacomo Grasselli, from the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospediale Maggiore Policlinico, and Alberto Zanella, from the University of Milan, Italy, in an accompanying commentary.

“First, it confirms the key pathogenic role played by the activation of systemic inflammation and endothelial-vascular damage in the development of organ dysfunction,” they write. “Second, it provides the rationale for the design of clinical trials for measuring the efficacy of treatment with immunomodulating and anticoagulant drugs.”

Seventeen percent of patients received interleukin receptor antagonists and 26% received corticosteroids, but the authors did not report any data on the effects of these treatments, or any data about anticoagulant therapies administered.
 

Severe disease common

The study also highlighted a high proportion of ethnic and racial minorities. Sixty-two percent of the critically ill patients were Hispanic or Latinx, 19% Black, 32% White, and 3% Asian.

Their median age was 62 years and 67% were men. Eighty-two percent had at least one chronic illness, most commonly hypertension (63%), followed by diabetes (36%). Forty-six percent were obese.

As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) of the critically ill patients had died following a median of 9 days (interquartile range (IQR), 5–15) in the hospital and 94 (37%) remained hospitalized. Of the 203 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, 84 (41%) had died.

The poor prognosis of patients requiring ventilation is consistent with data from a report on patients treated in National Health Service intensive care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland through May 15. Overall, 11,292 patients with COVID-19 required critical care, and 4855 needed advanced respiratory support. Approximately half of the patients receiving mechanical ventilation had died 30 days after starting critical care.

In the New York study, patients spent an average of 18 days on a ventilator (IQR, 9–28 days). This is a longer period than reported in smaller studies of cases from Washington state, but corresponds with a recent report from Italy, the researchers said.

Remarkably, O’Donnell and colleagues report that almost a third (31%) of critically ill patients developed severe kidney damage and required dialysis.

Mortality was associated with several baseline factors, including older age (aHR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09–1.57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08–2·86), and chronic pulmonary disease (aHR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.48–5.84).

Authors of the New York study reported financial relationships to ICE Neurosystems, ALung Technologies, Baxter, BREETHE, Xenios, Hemovent, Gilead Sciences, Amazon, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. Grasselli reports personal fees from Biotest, Draeger, Fisher & Paykel, Maquet, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer, all outside the area of work commented on here. Zanella has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation, use of direct oral anticoagulants is linked to lower osteoporotic fracture risk versus warfarin, results of a recent population-based cohort study show.

iStock/Thinkstock

The choice of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) didn’t appear to have an impact, as each individual agent yielded a substantially lower risk of fracture versus the vitamin K antagonist, with risk reductions ranging from 38% to 48%, according to the study authors.

This is one of the latest reports to suggest DOACs could have an edge over warfarin for preventing fractures, providing new evidence that “may help inform the benefit risk assessment” when it comes to choosing an anticoagulant for a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) in the clinic, wrote the authors, led by Wallis C.Y. Lau, PhD, with the University College London.

“There exists a compelling case for evaluating whether the risk for osteoporotic fractures should be considered at the point of prescribing an oral anticoagulant to minimize fracture risk,” Dr. Lau and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The case is especially compelling since fracture risk is “often neglected” when choosing an anticoagulant, the authors wrote. Surgeries to treat fracture are difficult because of the need for perioperative management of anticoagulation as “a balance between the risk for stroke and excessive bleeding must be achieved,” they added.

Based on these data, physicians should strongly consider DOACs as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists to reduce the risk of osteoporosis over the long term in patients with AFib, according to Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, a Florida endocrinologist.

“Osteoporosis takes years, sometimes decades to develop, and if you then overlay warfarin on top of a readily evolving metabolic bone disease, you probably accelerate that process, said Dr. Roberts, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and editorial advisory board member of Internal Medicine News.

There’s a considerable amount of concerning preclinical data that warfarin could increase osteoporotic fracture risk. Of note, vitamin K antagonists modulate osteocalcin, a calcium-binding bone matrix protein, Dr. Roberts said.

“Osteocalcin is important for bone metabolism and health, and inhibiting osteocalcin will inhibit the ability to have a healthy bone matrix,” he explained.

The impact of anticoagulants on fracture risk is particularly relevant to patients with AFib, according to Dr. Lau and colleagues, who referenced one 2017 report showing a higher incidence of hip fracture among AFib patients versus those without AFib.

In their more recent study, Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed electronic health records in a Hong Kong database for 23,515 older adults with a new diagnosis of AFib who received a new prescription of warfarin or DOACs including apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

DOAC use was consistently associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic fractures versus warfarin, regardless of the DOAC considered. The hazard ratios were 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.94) for apixaban, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for dabigatran, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.37-0.73) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, the report showed.

Head-to-head comparisons between DOACS didn’t yield any statistically significant differences, though the analyses were underpowered in this respect, according to the investigators.

“This study can only rule out more than a twofold higher or a 50% lower relative risk for osteoporotic fractures between individual DOACs,” they wrote. “However, any absolute risk differences were small and would likely be of minor clinical significance.”

The reduced risk of fracture for DOACs versus warfarin was consistent in men and women with AFib, suggesting that women may particularly benefit from DOACs, given that they have a higher risk of fracture than men, the investigators added.

The results of this study suggest yet another benefit of DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, according to internist Noel Deep, MD, who is the chief medical officer of Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wisconsin.

“The lower risk of osteoporotic fractures with DOACS, in addition to other advantages such as lower risk of intracranial bleeding, once- or twice-daily consistent dosing, no dietary restrictions, and no blood tests to regulate the dose might be another reason that physicians may favor them over warfarin in older individuals requiring anticoagulation,” Dr. Deep said in an interview.

Results of this and several other recent studies may help in recommending DOACs to internal medicine patients who have a diagnosis of AFib requiring anticoagulation, according to Dr. Deep, who is also a physician at Aspirus Antigo Clinic and a member of Internal Medicine News’ editorial advisory board. These include a 2019 U.S.-based study of more than 167,000 patients with AFib (JAMA Intern Med. 2019;180[2]:245‐253) showing that use of DOACs, particularly apixaban, were linked to lower fracture risk versus warfarin use. Similarly, a Danish national registry study also published in 2019 showed that the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low overall and significantly lower in patients who received DOACs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74[17]:2150-2158).

Funding for the study came from the University of Hong Kong and University College London Strategic Planning Fund. The study authors reported disclosures related to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, IQVIA, and others.

SOURCE: Lau WCY et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3671.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

The American Geriatrics Society has issued policy recommendations aimed at protecting seniors from ageism when it comes to resource allocation in the current context of treating patients infected with COVID-19.

“The AGS is deeply concerned about potentially negative long-term consequences of COVID-19 emergency rationing strategies that disfavor older adults,” Timothy W. Farrell, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues wrote in an AGS position statement published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

“In particular, rationing strategies that are solely, or predominantly, based on age cutoffs could lead to persistent beliefs that older adults’ lives are less valuable than others or are even expendable, and contribute to already rampant ageism,” the authors continued. “Unless the injustice in these strategies is corrected, this will be a persistent issue if there is a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, a pandemic caused by a different virus in the future, or a different type of disaster where resources are scarce.”

To counter a potential bias against the elderly population should scarce resources force rationing decisions, AGS has made recommendations and strategies that health care systems should incorporate into a policy framework.

One principle in the AGS statement is clear: “Age per se should never be used as a means for a categorical exclusion from therapeutic interventions that represent the standard of care. ... Likewise, specific age-based cutoffs should not be used in resource allocation strategies.”

Peter Angelos, MD, chief of endocrine surgery at the University of Chicago, applauded the position statement.

“It is a well-written statement and I do think that it appropriately suggests that age in and of itself is not a good predictor of who is at greatest risk if infected with coronavirus,” Dr. Angelos, who also serves as the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, said in an interview.

He suggested a scenario in which a younger person could have multiple comorbidities that could put that individual at a higher risk of death because of complications from COVID-19 (or another pandemic in the future), compared with an older patient who is otherwise a healthy individual with a lower risk of death.

“For that reason, I agree with the authors that there should not be an arbitrary cutoff of age for which we don’t treat people or we limit treatment.”

Rather, the authors state that the primary allocation method in emergency circumstances that require rationing because of lack of resources should “equally weigh in-hospital survival and severe comorbidities contributing to short-term (<6 months) mortality.”

When assessing comorbidities, “the disparate impact of social determinants of health including culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors should be considered.”

AGS’s position statement adds that criteria such as “life-years saved” and “long-term predicted life expectancy” should not be used as they tend to disadvantage older adults.

The organization noted that institutions “should develop resource allocation strategies that are transparent, applied uniformly, and developed with forethought and input from multiple disciplines including ethics, medicine, law, and nursing. These strategies should be used consistently when making emergency decisions.” The AGS called for institutions to frequently review these strategies to ensure they are updated with the most recent evidence and to identify any issues of bias that may emerge.

Dr. Angelos stressed that these guidelines should be developed in a transparent and open fashion. He also highlighted the AGS recommendation of the use of triage officers or triage committees to make the determination about resource allocation should those decisions need to be made.

“We don’t want caregivers who are at the bedside taking care of patients to have the responsibility to say ‘We are going to treat one person as opposed to another person,’ ” he said. “You want to have those decisions made by a team that is separate from the bedside caregivers.”

He agreed with the statement authors that the goal of the triage committee decisions should be to maximize lives saved as opposed to life-years saved. Dr. Angelos noted that his institution’s plan focuses on lives saved should the need for resource rationing come to pass.

In addition to institutional strategies, AGS also emphasized in the position statement that older adults should develop individual care plans that include lists of medical conditions, medications, health care providers, and advance directives. The statement also noted that about only 50% of adults over age 60 years have complete advance directives, a rate Dr. Farrell and colleagues state is “unacceptably low.”

“Advance care planning should not be limited to the purview of only the primary care, geriatrics, or palliative care health professional, and urgent efforts should be made to discuss patient preferences before an emergent need arises,” the paper states, noting that specialists need to be a part of the conversation.

However, the position statement is clear that, while AGS is encouraging providers to talk about advance care planning with their patients, “providers should not pressure, even subtly, patients to engage in advance care planning or change to Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate (DNR/DNI) status with the intent to conserve health resources.”

Dr. Angelos reiterated this point and suggested that advance directive conversations need to be happening and happening more often.

“This current pandemic has forced us all to realize that, even in well-resourced societies like the United States, we may be faced with situations of absolute scarcity, so we ought to have these conversations up front so that we are not put in a position where we have to make decisions, and those decisions may not be well thought out and may not be ethically justifiable,” he said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farrell TW et al. J Am Geriat Soc. 2020 May 6; doi: 10.1111/jgs.16537.

The American Geriatrics Society has issued policy recommendations aimed at protecting seniors from ageism when it comes to resource allocation in the current context of treating patients infected with COVID-19.

“The AGS is deeply concerned about potentially negative long-term consequences of COVID-19 emergency rationing strategies that disfavor older adults,” Timothy W. Farrell, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues wrote in an AGS position statement published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

“In particular, rationing strategies that are solely, or predominantly, based on age cutoffs could lead to persistent beliefs that older adults’ lives are less valuable than others or are even expendable, and contribute to already rampant ageism,” the authors continued. “Unless the injustice in these strategies is corrected, this will be a persistent issue if there is a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, a pandemic caused by a different virus in the future, or a different type of disaster where resources are scarce.”

To counter a potential bias against the elderly population should scarce resources force rationing decisions, AGS has made recommendations and strategies that health care systems should incorporate into a policy framework.

One principle in the AGS statement is clear: “Age per se should never be used as a means for a categorical exclusion from therapeutic interventions that represent the standard of care. ... Likewise, specific age-based cutoffs should not be used in resource allocation strategies.”

Peter Angelos, MD, chief of endocrine surgery at the University of Chicago, applauded the position statement.

“It is a well-written statement and I do think that it appropriately suggests that age in and of itself is not a good predictor of who is at greatest risk if infected with coronavirus,” Dr. Angelos, who also serves as the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, said in an interview.

He suggested a scenario in which a younger person could have multiple comorbidities that could put that individual at a higher risk of death because of complications from COVID-19 (or another pandemic in the future), compared with an older patient who is otherwise a healthy individual with a lower risk of death.

“For that reason, I agree with the authors that there should not be an arbitrary cutoff of age for which we don’t treat people or we limit treatment.”

Rather, the authors state that the primary allocation method in emergency circumstances that require rationing because of lack of resources should “equally weigh in-hospital survival and severe comorbidities contributing to short-term (<6 months) mortality.”

When assessing comorbidities, “the disparate impact of social determinants of health including culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors should be considered.”

AGS’s position statement adds that criteria such as “life-years saved” and “long-term predicted life expectancy” should not be used as they tend to disadvantage older adults.

The organization noted that institutions “should develop resource allocation strategies that are transparent, applied uniformly, and developed with forethought and input from multiple disciplines including ethics, medicine, law, and nursing. These strategies should be used consistently when making emergency decisions.” The AGS called for institutions to frequently review these strategies to ensure they are updated with the most recent evidence and to identify any issues of bias that may emerge.

Dr. Angelos stressed that these guidelines should be developed in a transparent and open fashion. He also highlighted the AGS recommendation of the use of triage officers or triage committees to make the determination about resource allocation should those decisions need to be made.

“We don’t want caregivers who are at the bedside taking care of patients to have the responsibility to say ‘We are going to treat one person as opposed to another person,’ ” he said. “You want to have those decisions made by a team that is separate from the bedside caregivers.”

He agreed with the statement authors that the goal of the triage committee decisions should be to maximize lives saved as opposed to life-years saved. Dr. Angelos noted that his institution’s plan focuses on lives saved should the need for resource rationing come to pass.

In addition to institutional strategies, AGS also emphasized in the position statement that older adults should develop individual care plans that include lists of medical conditions, medications, health care providers, and advance directives. The statement also noted that about only 50% of adults over age 60 years have complete advance directives, a rate Dr. Farrell and colleagues state is “unacceptably low.”

“Advance care planning should not be limited to the purview of only the primary care, geriatrics, or palliative care health professional, and urgent efforts should be made to discuss patient preferences before an emergent need arises,” the paper states, noting that specialists need to be a part of the conversation.

However, the position statement is clear that, while AGS is encouraging providers to talk about advance care planning with their patients, “providers should not pressure, even subtly, patients to engage in advance care planning or change to Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate (DNR/DNI) status with the intent to conserve health resources.”

Dr. Angelos reiterated this point and suggested that advance directive conversations need to be happening and happening more often.

“This current pandemic has forced us all to realize that, even in well-resourced societies like the United States, we may be faced with situations of absolute scarcity, so we ought to have these conversations up front so that we are not put in a position where we have to make decisions, and those decisions may not be well thought out and may not be ethically justifiable,” he said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farrell TW et al. J Am Geriat Soc. 2020 May 6; doi: 10.1111/jgs.16537.

The American Geriatrics Society has issued policy recommendations aimed at protecting seniors from ageism when it comes to resource allocation in the current context of treating patients infected with COVID-19.

“The AGS is deeply concerned about potentially negative long-term consequences of COVID-19 emergency rationing strategies that disfavor older adults,” Timothy W. Farrell, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues wrote in an AGS position statement published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

“In particular, rationing strategies that are solely, or predominantly, based on age cutoffs could lead to persistent beliefs that older adults’ lives are less valuable than others or are even expendable, and contribute to already rampant ageism,” the authors continued. “Unless the injustice in these strategies is corrected, this will be a persistent issue if there is a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, a pandemic caused by a different virus in the future, or a different type of disaster where resources are scarce.”

To counter a potential bias against the elderly population should scarce resources force rationing decisions, AGS has made recommendations and strategies that health care systems should incorporate into a policy framework.

One principle in the AGS statement is clear: “Age per se should never be used as a means for a categorical exclusion from therapeutic interventions that represent the standard of care. ... Likewise, specific age-based cutoffs should not be used in resource allocation strategies.”

Peter Angelos, MD, chief of endocrine surgery at the University of Chicago, applauded the position statement.

“It is a well-written statement and I do think that it appropriately suggests that age in and of itself is not a good predictor of who is at greatest risk if infected with coronavirus,” Dr. Angelos, who also serves as the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, said in an interview.

He suggested a scenario in which a younger person could have multiple comorbidities that could put that individual at a higher risk of death because of complications from COVID-19 (or another pandemic in the future), compared with an older patient who is otherwise a healthy individual with a lower risk of death.

“For that reason, I agree with the authors that there should not be an arbitrary cutoff of age for which we don’t treat people or we limit treatment.”

Rather, the authors state that the primary allocation method in emergency circumstances that require rationing because of lack of resources should “equally weigh in-hospital survival and severe comorbidities contributing to short-term (<6 months) mortality.”

When assessing comorbidities, “the disparate impact of social determinants of health including culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors should be considered.”

AGS’s position statement adds that criteria such as “life-years saved” and “long-term predicted life expectancy” should not be used as they tend to disadvantage older adults.

The organization noted that institutions “should develop resource allocation strategies that are transparent, applied uniformly, and developed with forethought and input from multiple disciplines including ethics, medicine, law, and nursing. These strategies should be used consistently when making emergency decisions.” The AGS called for institutions to frequently review these strategies to ensure they are updated with the most recent evidence and to identify any issues of bias that may emerge.

Dr. Angelos stressed that these guidelines should be developed in a transparent and open fashion. He also highlighted the AGS recommendation of the use of triage officers or triage committees to make the determination about resource allocation should those decisions need to be made.

“We don’t want caregivers who are at the bedside taking care of patients to have the responsibility to say ‘We are going to treat one person as opposed to another person,’ ” he said. “You want to have those decisions made by a team that is separate from the bedside caregivers.”

He agreed with the statement authors that the goal of the triage committee decisions should be to maximize lives saved as opposed to life-years saved. Dr. Angelos noted that his institution’s plan focuses on lives saved should the need for resource rationing come to pass.

In addition to institutional strategies, AGS also emphasized in the position statement that older adults should develop individual care plans that include lists of medical conditions, medications, health care providers, and advance directives. The statement also noted that about only 50% of adults over age 60 years have complete advance directives, a rate Dr. Farrell and colleagues state is “unacceptably low.”

“Advance care planning should not be limited to the purview of only the primary care, geriatrics, or palliative care health professional, and urgent efforts should be made to discuss patient preferences before an emergent need arises,” the paper states, noting that specialists need to be a part of the conversation.

However, the position statement is clear that, while AGS is encouraging providers to talk about advance care planning with their patients, “providers should not pressure, even subtly, patients to engage in advance care planning or change to Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate (DNR/DNI) status with the intent to conserve health resources.”

Dr. Angelos reiterated this point and suggested that advance directive conversations need to be happening and happening more often.

“This current pandemic has forced us all to realize that, even in well-resourced societies like the United States, we may be faced with situations of absolute scarcity, so we ought to have these conversations up front so that we are not put in a position where we have to make decisions, and those decisions may not be well thought out and may not be ethically justifiable,” he said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farrell TW et al. J Am Geriat Soc. 2020 May 6; doi: 10.1111/jgs.16537.

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mainstream media outlets have been flooded recently with reports speculating on what role, if any, vitamin D may play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Observational data comparing outcomes from various countries suggest inverse links between vitamin D levels and the severity of COVID-19 responses, as well as mortality, with the further suggestion of an effect of vitamin D on the immune response to infection.

But other studies question such a link, including any association between vitamin D concentration and differences in COVID-19 severity by ethnic group.

And while some researchers and clinicians believe people should get tested to see if they have adequate vitamin D levels during this pandemic – in particular frontline health care workers – most doctors say the best way to ensure that people have adequate levels of vitamin D during COVID-19 is to simply take supplements at currently recommended levels.

This is especially important given the fact that, during “lockdown” scenarios, many people are spending more time than usual indoors.

Clifford Rosen, MD, senior scientist at Maine Medical Center’s Research Institute in Scarborough, has been researching vitamin D for 25 years.

“There’s no randomized, controlled trial for sure, and that’s the gold standard,” he said in an interview, and “the observational data are so confounded, it’s difficult to know.”

Whether from diet or supplementation, having adequate vitamin D is important, especially for those at the highest risk of COVID-19, he said. Still, robust data supporting a role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19, or as any kind of “therapy” for the infection, are currently lacking.

Rose Anne Kenny, MD, professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College Dublin, recently coauthored an article detailing an inverse association between vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 across countries in Europe.

“At no stage are any of us saying this is a given, but there’s a probability that [vitamin D] – a low-hanging fruit – is a contributory factor and we can do something about it now,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kenny is calling for the Irish government to formally change their recommendations. “We call on the Irish government to update guidelines as a matter of urgency and encourage all adults to take [vitamin D] supplements during the COVID-19 crisis.” Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, also has not yet made this recommendation, she said.

Meanwhile, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, a practicing endocrinologist from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, said: “Vitamin D could have any of three potential roles in risk for COVID-19 and/or its severity: no role, simply a marker, or a causal factor.”

Dr. Bajaj said – as did Dr. Rosen and Dr. Kenny – that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are sorely needed to help ascertain whether there is a specific role of vitamin D.

“Until then, we should continue to follow established public health recommendations for vitamin D supplementation, in addition to following COVID-19 prevention guidance and evolving guidelines for COVID-19 treatment.”
 

What is the role of vitamin D fortification?

In their study in the Irish Medical Journal, Dr. Kenny and colleagues noted that, in Europe, despite being sunny, Spain and Northern Italy had high rates of vitamin D deficiency and have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 infection and mortality rates in the world.

But these countries do not formally fortify foods or recommend supplementation with vitamin D.

Conversely, the northern countries of Norway, Finland, and Sweden had higher vitamin D levels despite less UVB sunlight exposure, as a result of common supplementation and formal fortification of foods. These Nordic countries also had lower levels of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Overall, the correlation between low vitamin D levels and mortality from COVID-19 was statistically significant (P = .046), the investigators reported.

“Optimizing vitamin D status to recommendations by national and international public health agencies will certainly have ... potential benefits for COVID-19,” they concluded.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any confounders. This can absolutely be the case, but this [finding] needs to be in the mix of evidence,” Dr. Kenny said.

Dr. Kenny also noted that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been seeing a relatively low mortality from COVID-19, although she acknowledged the explanation could be that the virus spread later to those countries.

Dr. Rosen has doubts on this issue, too.

“Sure, vitamin D supplementation may have worked for [Nordic countries], their COVID-19 has been better controlled, but there’s no causality here; there’s another step to actually prove this. Other factors might be at play,” he said.

“Look at Brazil, it’s at the equator but the disease is devastating the country. Right now, I just don’t believe it.”

Does vitamin D have a role to play in immune modulation?

One theory currently circulating is that, if vitamin D does have any role to play in modulating response to COVID-19, this may be via a blunting of the immune system reaction to the virus.

In a recent preprint study, Ali Daneshkhah, PhD, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, interrogated hospital data from China, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Specifically, the risk of severe COVID-19 cases among patients with severe vitamin D deficiency was 17.3%, whereas the equivalent figure for patients with normal vitamin D levels was 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%).

“This potential effect may be attributed to vitamin D’s ability to suppress the adaptive immune system, regulating cytokine levels and thereby reducing the risk of developing severe COVID-19,” said the researchers.

Likewise, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, in a recent commentary, noted evidence from an observational study from three South Asian hospitals, in which the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was much higher among those with severe COVID-19 illness compared with those with mild illness.

“We also know that vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated,” she noted.

Dr. Rosen said he is willing to listen on the issue of a potential role of vitamin D in immune modulation.

“I’ve been a huge skeptic from the get-go, and loudly criticized the data for doing nothing. I am surprised at myself for saying there might be some effect,” he said.

“Clearly most people don’t get this [cytokine storm] but of those that do, it’s unclear why they do. Maybe if you are vitamin D sufficient, it might have some impact down the road on your response to an infection,” Dr. Rosen said. “Vitamin D may induce proteins important in modulating the function of macrophages of the immune system.”

Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected

It is also well recognized that COVID-19 disproportionately affects black and Asian minority ethnic individuals.

But on the issue of vitamin D in this context, one recent peer-reviewed study using UK Biobank data found no evidence to support a potential role for vitamin D concentration to explain susceptibility to COVID-19 infection either overall or in explaining differences between ethnic groups.

“Vitamin D is unlikely to be the underlying mechanism for the higher risk observed in black and minority ethnic individuals, and vitamin D supplements are unlikely to provide an effective intervention,” Claire Hastie, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and colleagues concluded.

But this hasn’t stopped two endocrinologists from appealing to members of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) to get their vitamin D levels tested.

The black and Asian minority ethnic population, “especially frontline staff, should get their Vitamin D₃ levels checked and get appropriate replacement as required,” said Parag Singhal, MD, of Weston General Hospital, Weston-Super-Mare, England, and David C. Anderson, a retired endocrinologist, said in a letter to BAPIO members.

Indeed, they suggested a booster dose of 100,000 IU as a one-off for black and Asian minority ethnic health care staff that should raise vitamin D levels for 2-3 months. They referred to a systematic review that concludes that “single vitamin D₃ doses ≥300,000 IU are most effective at improving vitamin D status ... for up to 3 months”.

Commenting on the idea, Dr. Rosen remarked that, in general, the high-dose 50,000-500,000 IU given as a one-off does not confer any greater benefit than a single dose of 1,000 IU per day, except that the blood levels go up quicker and higher.

“Really there is no evidence that getting to super-high levels of vitamin D confer a greater benefit than normal levels,” he said. “So if health care workers suspect vitamin D deficiency, daily doses of 1,000 IU seem reasonable; even if they miss doses, the blood levels are relatively stable.”

On the specific question of vitamin D needs in ethnic minorities, Dr. Rosen said while such individuals do have lower serum levels of vitamin D, the issue is whether there are meaningful clinical implications related to this.

“The real question is whether [ethnic minority individuals] have physiologically adapted for this in other ways because these low levels have been so for thousands of years. In fact, African Americans have lower vitamin D levels but they absolutely have better bones than [whites],” he pointed out. 
 

Testing and governmental recommendations during COVID-19

The U.S. National Institutes of Health in general advises 400 IU to 800 IU per day intake of vitamin D, depending on age, with those over 70 years requiring the highest daily dose. This will result in blood levels that are sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. There are no additional recommendations specific to vitamin D intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, however.

And Dr. Rosen pointed out that there is no evidence for mass screening of vitamin D levels among the U.S. population.

“U.S. public health guidance was pre-COVID, and I think high-risk individuals might want to think about their levels; for example, someone with inflammatory bowel disease or liver or pancreatic disease. These people are at higher risk anyway, and it could be because their vitamin D is low,” he said.

“Skip the test and ensure you are getting adequate levels of vitamin D whether via diet or supplement [400-800 IU per day],” he suggested. “It won’t harm.”

The U.K.’s Public Health England (PHE) clarified its advice on vitamin D supplementation during COVID-19. Alison Tedstone, PhD, chief nutritionist at PHE, said: “Many people are spending more time indoors and may not get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight. To protect their bone and muscle health, they should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms [400 IU] of vitamin D.”

However, “there is no sufficient evidence to support recommending Vitamin D for reducing the risk of COVID-19,” she stressed.

Dr. Bajaj is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology. He has ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly,Valeant, Canadian Collaborative Research Network, CMS Knowledge Translation, Diabetes Canada Scientific Group, LMC Healthcare,mdBriefCase,Medscape, andMeducom. Dr. Kenny, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Singhal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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