Commentary

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The US Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS) publishes annual reports describing exposures to various substances among the general population.¹ Table 22B of each NPDS report shows the number of outcomes from exposures to different pharmacologic treatments in the United States, including psychotropic medications.² In this Table, the relative morbidity (RM) of a medication is calculated as the ratio of serious outcomes (SO) to single exposures (SE), where SO = moderate + major + death. In this article, I use the NPDS data to demonstrate how time series analysis of the RM ratios for hypertension and psychiatric medications can help predict SO associated with these agents, which may help guide clinicians’ prescribing decisions.^2,3

Time series analysis of hypertension medications

Due to the high prevalence of hypertension, it is not surprising that more suicide deaths occur each year from calcium channel blockers (CCB) than from lithium (37 vs 2, according to 2017 NPDS data).³ I used time series analysis to compare SO during 2006-2017 for 5 classes of hypertension medications: CCB, beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and diuretics (Figure 1).

Time series analysis of 2006-2017 data predicted the following number of deaths for 2018: CCB ≥33, BB ≥17, ACEI ≤2, ARB 0, and diuretics ≤1. The observed deaths in 2018 were 41, 23, 0, 0, and 1, respectively.² The 2018 predicted RM were CCB 10.66%, BB 11.10%, ACEI 3.51%, ARB 2.04%, and diuretics 3.38%. The 2018 observed RM for these medications were 11.01%, 11.37%, 3.02%, 2.40%, and 2.88%, respectively.²

Because the NPDS data for hyper­tension medications was only provided by class, in order to detect differences within each class, I used the relative lethality (RL) equation: RL = 310x / LD50, where x is the maximum daily dose of a medication prescribed for 30 days, and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50. The RL equation represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person.⁴ The RL equation is useful for comparing the safety of various medications, and can help clinicians avoid prescribing a lethal amount of a given medication (Figure 2). For example, the equation shows that among CCB, felodipine is 466 times safer than verapamil and 101 times safer than diltiazem. Not surprisingly, 2006-2018 data shows many deaths via intentional verapamil or diltiazem overdose vs only 1 reference to felodipine. A regression model shows significant correlation and causality between RL and SO over time.⁵ Integrating all 3 mathematical models suggests that the higher RM of CCB and BB may be caused by the high RL of verapamil, diltiazem, nicardipine, propranolol, and labetalol.

These mathematical models can help physicians consider whether to switch the patient’s current medication to another class with a lower RM. For patients who need a BB or CCB, prescribing a medication with a lower RL within the same class may be another option. The data suggest that avoiding hypertension medications with RL >100% may significantly decrease morbidity and mortality.

Predicting serious outcomes of psychiatric medications

The 2018 NPDS data for psychiatric medications show similarly important results.² For example, the lithium RM is predictable over time (Figure 3) and has been consistently the highest among psychiatric medications. Using 2006-2017 NPDS data,³ I predicted that the 2018 lithium RM would be 41.56%. The 2018 observed lithium RM was 41.45%.² I created a linear regression model for each NPDS report from 2013 to 2018 to illustrate the correlation between RL and adjusted SO for 13 psychiatric medications.^2,3,6,7 To account for different sample sizes among medications, the lithium SE for each respective year was used for all medications (adjusted SO = SE × RM). A time series analysis of these regression models shows that SO data points hover in the same y-axis region from year to year, with a corresponding RL on the x-axis: escitalopram 6.33%, citalopram 15.50%, mirtazapine 28.47%, paroxetine 37.35%, sertraline 46.72%, fluoxetine 54.87%, venlafaxine 99.64%, duloxetine 133.33%, trazodone 269.57%, bupropion 289.42%, amitriptyline 387.50%, doxepin 632.65%, and lithium 1062.86% (Figure 4). Every year, the scatter plot shape remains approximately the same, which suggests that both SO and RM can be predicted over time. Medications with RL >300% have SO ≈ 1500 (RM ≈ 40%), and those with RL <100% have SO ≈ 500 (RM ≈ 13%).

Time series analysis of NPDS data sheds light on hidden patterns. It may help clinicians discern patterns of potential SO associated with various hypertension and psychiatric medications. RL based on rat experimental data is highly correlated to RM based on human observational data, and the causality is self-evident. On a global scale, data-driven prescribing of medications with RL <100% could potentially help prevent millions of SO every year.

The US Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS) publishes annual reports describing exposures to various substances among the general population.¹ Table 22B of each NPDS report shows the number of outcomes from exposures to different pharmacologic treatments in the United States, including psychotropic medications.² In this Table, the relative morbidity (RM) of a medication is calculated as the ratio of serious outcomes (SO) to single exposures (SE), where SO = moderate + major + death. In this article, I use the NPDS data to demonstrate how time series analysis of the RM ratios for hypertension and psychiatric medications can help predict SO associated with these agents, which may help guide clinicians’ prescribing decisions.^2,3

Time series analysis of hypertension medications

Due to the high prevalence of hypertension, it is not surprising that more suicide deaths occur each year from calcium channel blockers (CCB) than from lithium (37 vs 2, according to 2017 NPDS data).³ I used time series analysis to compare SO during 2006-2017 for 5 classes of hypertension medications: CCB, beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and diuretics (Figure 1).

Time series analysis of 2006-2017 data predicted the following number of deaths for 2018: CCB ≥33, BB ≥17, ACEI ≤2, ARB 0, and diuretics ≤1. The observed deaths in 2018 were 41, 23, 0, 0, and 1, respectively.² The 2018 predicted RM were CCB 10.66%, BB 11.10%, ACEI 3.51%, ARB 2.04%, and diuretics 3.38%. The 2018 observed RM for these medications were 11.01%, 11.37%, 3.02%, 2.40%, and 2.88%, respectively.²

Because the NPDS data for hyper­tension medications was only provided by class, in order to detect differences within each class, I used the relative lethality (RL) equation: RL = 310x / LD50, where x is the maximum daily dose of a medication prescribed for 30 days, and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50. The RL equation represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person.⁴ The RL equation is useful for comparing the safety of various medications, and can help clinicians avoid prescribing a lethal amount of a given medication (Figure 2). For example, the equation shows that among CCB, felodipine is 466 times safer than verapamil and 101 times safer than diltiazem. Not surprisingly, 2006-2018 data shows many deaths via intentional verapamil or diltiazem overdose vs only 1 reference to felodipine. A regression model shows significant correlation and causality between RL and SO over time.⁵ Integrating all 3 mathematical models suggests that the higher RM of CCB and BB may be caused by the high RL of verapamil, diltiazem, nicardipine, propranolol, and labetalol.

These mathematical models can help physicians consider whether to switch the patient’s current medication to another class with a lower RM. For patients who need a BB or CCB, prescribing a medication with a lower RL within the same class may be another option. The data suggest that avoiding hypertension medications with RL >100% may significantly decrease morbidity and mortality.

Predicting serious outcomes of psychiatric medications

The 2018 NPDS data for psychiatric medications show similarly important results.² For example, the lithium RM is predictable over time (Figure 3) and has been consistently the highest among psychiatric medications. Using 2006-2017 NPDS data,³ I predicted that the 2018 lithium RM would be 41.56%. The 2018 observed lithium RM was 41.45%.² I created a linear regression model for each NPDS report from 2013 to 2018 to illustrate the correlation between RL and adjusted SO for 13 psychiatric medications.^2,3,6,7 To account for different sample sizes among medications, the lithium SE for each respective year was used for all medications (adjusted SO = SE × RM). A time series analysis of these regression models shows that SO data points hover in the same y-axis region from year to year, with a corresponding RL on the x-axis: escitalopram 6.33%, citalopram 15.50%, mirtazapine 28.47%, paroxetine 37.35%, sertraline 46.72%, fluoxetine 54.87%, venlafaxine 99.64%, duloxetine 133.33%, trazodone 269.57%, bupropion 289.42%, amitriptyline 387.50%, doxepin 632.65%, and lithium 1062.86% (Figure 4). Every year, the scatter plot shape remains approximately the same, which suggests that both SO and RM can be predicted over time. Medications with RL >300% have SO ≈ 1500 (RM ≈ 40%), and those with RL <100% have SO ≈ 500 (RM ≈ 13%).

Time series analysis of NPDS data sheds light on hidden patterns. It may help clinicians discern patterns of potential SO associated with various hypertension and psychiatric medications. RL based on rat experimental data is highly correlated to RM based on human observational data, and the causality is self-evident. On a global scale, data-driven prescribing of medications with RL <100% could potentially help prevent millions of SO every year.

The US Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS) publishes annual reports describing exposures to various substances among the general population.¹ Table 22B of each NPDS report shows the number of outcomes from exposures to different pharmacologic treatments in the United States, including psychotropic medications.² In this Table, the relative morbidity (RM) of a medication is calculated as the ratio of serious outcomes (SO) to single exposures (SE), where SO = moderate + major + death. In this article, I use the NPDS data to demonstrate how time series analysis of the RM ratios for hypertension and psychiatric medications can help predict SO associated with these agents, which may help guide clinicians’ prescribing decisions.^2,3

Time series analysis of hypertension medications

Due to the high prevalence of hypertension, it is not surprising that more suicide deaths occur each year from calcium channel blockers (CCB) than from lithium (37 vs 2, according to 2017 NPDS data).³ I used time series analysis to compare SO during 2006-2017 for 5 classes of hypertension medications: CCB, beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and diuretics (Figure 1).

Time series analysis of 2006-2017 data predicted the following number of deaths for 2018: CCB ≥33, BB ≥17, ACEI ≤2, ARB 0, and diuretics ≤1. The observed deaths in 2018 were 41, 23, 0, 0, and 1, respectively.² The 2018 predicted RM were CCB 10.66%, BB 11.10%, ACEI 3.51%, ARB 2.04%, and diuretics 3.38%. The 2018 observed RM for these medications were 11.01%, 11.37%, 3.02%, 2.40%, and 2.88%, respectively.²

Because the NPDS data for hyper­tension medications was only provided by class, in order to detect differences within each class, I used the relative lethality (RL) equation: RL = 310x / LD50, where x is the maximum daily dose of a medication prescribed for 30 days, and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50. The RL equation represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person.⁴ The RL equation is useful for comparing the safety of various medications, and can help clinicians avoid prescribing a lethal amount of a given medication (Figure 2). For example, the equation shows that among CCB, felodipine is 466 times safer than verapamil and 101 times safer than diltiazem. Not surprisingly, 2006-2018 data shows many deaths via intentional verapamil or diltiazem overdose vs only 1 reference to felodipine. A regression model shows significant correlation and causality between RL and SO over time.⁵ Integrating all 3 mathematical models suggests that the higher RM of CCB and BB may be caused by the high RL of verapamil, diltiazem, nicardipine, propranolol, and labetalol.

These mathematical models can help physicians consider whether to switch the patient’s current medication to another class with a lower RM. For patients who need a BB or CCB, prescribing a medication with a lower RL within the same class may be another option. The data suggest that avoiding hypertension medications with RL >100% may significantly decrease morbidity and mortality.

Predicting serious outcomes of psychiatric medications

The 2018 NPDS data for psychiatric medications show similarly important results.² For example, the lithium RM is predictable over time (Figure 3) and has been consistently the highest among psychiatric medications. Using 2006-2017 NPDS data,³ I predicted that the 2018 lithium RM would be 41.56%. The 2018 observed lithium RM was 41.45%.² I created a linear regression model for each NPDS report from 2013 to 2018 to illustrate the correlation between RL and adjusted SO for 13 psychiatric medications.^2,3,6,7 To account for different sample sizes among medications, the lithium SE for each respective year was used for all medications (adjusted SO = SE × RM). A time series analysis of these regression models shows that SO data points hover in the same y-axis region from year to year, with a corresponding RL on the x-axis: escitalopram 6.33%, citalopram 15.50%, mirtazapine 28.47%, paroxetine 37.35%, sertraline 46.72%, fluoxetine 54.87%, venlafaxine 99.64%, duloxetine 133.33%, trazodone 269.57%, bupropion 289.42%, amitriptyline 387.50%, doxepin 632.65%, and lithium 1062.86% (Figure 4). Every year, the scatter plot shape remains approximately the same, which suggests that both SO and RM can be predicted over time. Medications with RL >300% have SO ≈ 1500 (RM ≈ 40%), and those with RL <100% have SO ≈ 500 (RM ≈ 13%).

Time series analysis of NPDS data sheds light on hidden patterns. It may help clinicians discern patterns of potential SO associated with various hypertension and psychiatric medications. RL based on rat experimental data is highly correlated to RM based on human observational data, and the causality is self-evident. On a global scale, data-driven prescribing of medications with RL <100% could potentially help prevent millions of SO every year.

In addition to affecting our personal lives, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered the way we practice psychiatry. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of mental health services via remote communication—is being used to replace face-to-face outpatient encounters. Several rules and regulations governing the provision of care and prescribing have been temporarily modified or suspended to allow clinicians to more easily use telepsychiatry to care for their patients. Although these requirements are continually changing, here I review some of the telepsychiatry rules and regulations clinicians need to understand to minimize their risk for liability.

Changes in light of COVID-19

In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance that allows Medicare beneficiaries to receive various services at home through telehealth without having to travel to a doctor’s office or hospital.¹ Many commercial insurers also are allowing patients to receive telehealth services in their home. The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), reported in March 2020 that it will not impose penalties for not complying with HIPAA requirements on clinicians who provide good-faith telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 crisis.²

Clinicians who want to use audio or video remote communication to provide any type of telehealth services (not just those related to COVID-19) should use “non-public facing” products.² Non-public facing products (eg, Skype, WhatsApp video call, Zoom) allow only the intended parties to participate in the communication.³ Usually, these products employ end-to-end encryption, which allows only those engaging in communication to see and hear what is transmitted.³ To limit access and verify the participants, these products also support individual user accounts, login names, and passwords.³ In addition, these products usually allow participants and/or “the host” to exert some degree of control over particular features, such as choosing to record the communication, mute, or turn off the video or audio signal.³ When using these products, clinicians should enable all available encryption and privacy modes.²

“Public-facing” products (eg, Facebook Live, TikTok, Twitch) should not be used to provide telepsychiatry services because they are designed to be open to the public or allow for wide or indiscriminate access to the communication.^2,3 Clinicians who desire additional privacy protections (and a more permanent solution) should choose a HIPAA-compliant telehealth vendor (eg, Doxy.me, VSee, Zoom for Healthcare) and obtain a Business Associate Agreement with the vendor to ensure data protection and security.^2,4

Regardless of the product, obtain informed consent from your patients that authorizes the use of remote communication.⁴ Inform your patients of any potential privacy or security breaches, the need for interactions to be conducted in a location that provides privacy, and whether the specific technology used is HIPAA-compliant.⁴ Document that your patients understand these issues before using remote communication.⁴

How licensing requirements have changed

As of March 31, 2020, the CMS temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state clinicians be licensed in the state where they are providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.⁵ The CMS waived this requirement for clinicians who meet the following 4 conditions^5,6:

• must be enrolled in Medicare
• must possess a valid license to practice in the state that relates to his/her Medicare enrollment
• are furnishing services—whether in person or via telepsychiatry—in a state where the emergency is occurring to contribute to relief efforts in his/her professional capacity
• are not excluded from practicing in any state that is part of the nationally declared emergency area.

Note that individual state licensure requirements continue to apply unless waived by the state.⁶ Therefore, in order for clinicians to see Medicare patients via remote communication under the 4 conditions described above, the state also would have to waive its licensure requirements for the type of practice for which the clinicians are licensed in their own state.⁶ Regarding commercial payers, in general, clinicians providing telepsychiatry services need a license to practice in the state where the patient is located at the time services are provided.⁶ During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governors issued executive orders waiving licensure requirements, and many have accelerated granting temporary licenses to out-of-state clinicians who wish to provide telepsychiatry services to the residents of their state.⁴

Continue to: Prescribing via telepsychiatry

 

 

Prescribing via telepsychiatry

Effective March 31, 2020 and lasting for the duration of COVID-19 emergency declaration, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suspended the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, which requires clinicians to conduct initial, in-person examinations of patients before they can prescribe controlled substances electronically.^6,7 The DEA suspension allows clinicians to prescribe controlled substances after conducting an initial evaluation via remote communication. In addition, the DEA waived the requirement that a clinician needs to hold a DEA license in the state where the patient is located to be able to prescribe a controlled substance electronically.^4,6 However, you still must comply with all other state laws and regulations for prescribing controlled substances.⁴

Staying informed

Although several telepsychiatry rules and regulations have been modified or suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, the standard of care for services rendered via telepsychiatry remains the same as services provided via face-to-face encounters, including patient evaluation and assessment, treatment plans, medication, and documentation.⁴ Clinicians can keep up-to-date on how practicing telepsychiatry may evolve during these times by using the following resources from the American Psychiatric Association:

• Telepsychiatry Toolkit: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry
• Practice Guidance for COVID-19: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus/practice-guidance-for-covid-19.

In addition to affecting our personal lives, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered the way we practice psychiatry. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of mental health services via remote communication—is being used to replace face-to-face outpatient encounters. Several rules and regulations governing the provision of care and prescribing have been temporarily modified or suspended to allow clinicians to more easily use telepsychiatry to care for their patients. Although these requirements are continually changing, here I review some of the telepsychiatry rules and regulations clinicians need to understand to minimize their risk for liability.

Changes in light of COVID-19

In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance that allows Medicare beneficiaries to receive various services at home through telehealth without having to travel to a doctor’s office or hospital.¹ Many commercial insurers also are allowing patients to receive telehealth services in their home. The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), reported in March 2020 that it will not impose penalties for not complying with HIPAA requirements on clinicians who provide good-faith telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 crisis.²

Clinicians who want to use audio or video remote communication to provide any type of telehealth services (not just those related to COVID-19) should use “non-public facing” products.² Non-public facing products (eg, Skype, WhatsApp video call, Zoom) allow only the intended parties to participate in the communication.³ Usually, these products employ end-to-end encryption, which allows only those engaging in communication to see and hear what is transmitted.³ To limit access and verify the participants, these products also support individual user accounts, login names, and passwords.³ In addition, these products usually allow participants and/or “the host” to exert some degree of control over particular features, such as choosing to record the communication, mute, or turn off the video or audio signal.³ When using these products, clinicians should enable all available encryption and privacy modes.²

“Public-facing” products (eg, Facebook Live, TikTok, Twitch) should not be used to provide telepsychiatry services because they are designed to be open to the public or allow for wide or indiscriminate access to the communication.^2,3 Clinicians who desire additional privacy protections (and a more permanent solution) should choose a HIPAA-compliant telehealth vendor (eg, Doxy.me, VSee, Zoom for Healthcare) and obtain a Business Associate Agreement with the vendor to ensure data protection and security.^2,4

Regardless of the product, obtain informed consent from your patients that authorizes the use of remote communication.⁴ Inform your patients of any potential privacy or security breaches, the need for interactions to be conducted in a location that provides privacy, and whether the specific technology used is HIPAA-compliant.⁴ Document that your patients understand these issues before using remote communication.⁴

How licensing requirements have changed

As of March 31, 2020, the CMS temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state clinicians be licensed in the state where they are providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.⁵ The CMS waived this requirement for clinicians who meet the following 4 conditions^5,6:

• must be enrolled in Medicare
• must possess a valid license to practice in the state that relates to his/her Medicare enrollment
• are furnishing services—whether in person or via telepsychiatry—in a state where the emergency is occurring to contribute to relief efforts in his/her professional capacity
• are not excluded from practicing in any state that is part of the nationally declared emergency area.

Note that individual state licensure requirements continue to apply unless waived by the state.⁶ Therefore, in order for clinicians to see Medicare patients via remote communication under the 4 conditions described above, the state also would have to waive its licensure requirements for the type of practice for which the clinicians are licensed in their own state.⁶ Regarding commercial payers, in general, clinicians providing telepsychiatry services need a license to practice in the state where the patient is located at the time services are provided.⁶ During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governors issued executive orders waiving licensure requirements, and many have accelerated granting temporary licenses to out-of-state clinicians who wish to provide telepsychiatry services to the residents of their state.⁴

Continue to: Prescribing via telepsychiatry

 

 

Prescribing via telepsychiatry

Effective March 31, 2020 and lasting for the duration of COVID-19 emergency declaration, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suspended the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, which requires clinicians to conduct initial, in-person examinations of patients before they can prescribe controlled substances electronically.^6,7 The DEA suspension allows clinicians to prescribe controlled substances after conducting an initial evaluation via remote communication. In addition, the DEA waived the requirement that a clinician needs to hold a DEA license in the state where the patient is located to be able to prescribe a controlled substance electronically.^4,6 However, you still must comply with all other state laws and regulations for prescribing controlled substances.⁴

Staying informed

Although several telepsychiatry rules and regulations have been modified or suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, the standard of care for services rendered via telepsychiatry remains the same as services provided via face-to-face encounters, including patient evaluation and assessment, treatment plans, medication, and documentation.⁴ Clinicians can keep up-to-date on how practicing telepsychiatry may evolve during these times by using the following resources from the American Psychiatric Association:

• Telepsychiatry Toolkit: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry
• Practice Guidance for COVID-19: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus/practice-guidance-for-covid-19.

In addition to affecting our personal lives, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered the way we practice psychiatry. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of mental health services via remote communication—is being used to replace face-to-face outpatient encounters. Several rules and regulations governing the provision of care and prescribing have been temporarily modified or suspended to allow clinicians to more easily use telepsychiatry to care for their patients. Although these requirements are continually changing, here I review some of the telepsychiatry rules and regulations clinicians need to understand to minimize their risk for liability.

Changes in light of COVID-19

In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance that allows Medicare beneficiaries to receive various services at home through telehealth without having to travel to a doctor’s office or hospital.¹ Many commercial insurers also are allowing patients to receive telehealth services in their home. The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), reported in March 2020 that it will not impose penalties for not complying with HIPAA requirements on clinicians who provide good-faith telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 crisis.²

Clinicians who want to use audio or video remote communication to provide any type of telehealth services (not just those related to COVID-19) should use “non-public facing” products.² Non-public facing products (eg, Skype, WhatsApp video call, Zoom) allow only the intended parties to participate in the communication.³ Usually, these products employ end-to-end encryption, which allows only those engaging in communication to see and hear what is transmitted.³ To limit access and verify the participants, these products also support individual user accounts, login names, and passwords.³ In addition, these products usually allow participants and/or “the host” to exert some degree of control over particular features, such as choosing to record the communication, mute, or turn off the video or audio signal.³ When using these products, clinicians should enable all available encryption and privacy modes.²

“Public-facing” products (eg, Facebook Live, TikTok, Twitch) should not be used to provide telepsychiatry services because they are designed to be open to the public or allow for wide or indiscriminate access to the communication.^2,3 Clinicians who desire additional privacy protections (and a more permanent solution) should choose a HIPAA-compliant telehealth vendor (eg, Doxy.me, VSee, Zoom for Healthcare) and obtain a Business Associate Agreement with the vendor to ensure data protection and security.^2,4

Regardless of the product, obtain informed consent from your patients that authorizes the use of remote communication.⁴ Inform your patients of any potential privacy or security breaches, the need for interactions to be conducted in a location that provides privacy, and whether the specific technology used is HIPAA-compliant.⁴ Document that your patients understand these issues before using remote communication.⁴

How licensing requirements have changed

As of March 31, 2020, the CMS temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state clinicians be licensed in the state where they are providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.⁵ The CMS waived this requirement for clinicians who meet the following 4 conditions^5,6:

• must be enrolled in Medicare
• must possess a valid license to practice in the state that relates to his/her Medicare enrollment
• are furnishing services—whether in person or via telepsychiatry—in a state where the emergency is occurring to contribute to relief efforts in his/her professional capacity
• are not excluded from practicing in any state that is part of the nationally declared emergency area.

Note that individual state licensure requirements continue to apply unless waived by the state.⁶ Therefore, in order for clinicians to see Medicare patients via remote communication under the 4 conditions described above, the state also would have to waive its licensure requirements for the type of practice for which the clinicians are licensed in their own state.⁶ Regarding commercial payers, in general, clinicians providing telepsychiatry services need a license to practice in the state where the patient is located at the time services are provided.⁶ During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governors issued executive orders waiving licensure requirements, and many have accelerated granting temporary licenses to out-of-state clinicians who wish to provide telepsychiatry services to the residents of their state.⁴

Continue to: Prescribing via telepsychiatry

 

 

Prescribing via telepsychiatry

Effective March 31, 2020 and lasting for the duration of COVID-19 emergency declaration, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suspended the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, which requires clinicians to conduct initial, in-person examinations of patients before they can prescribe controlled substances electronically.^6,7 The DEA suspension allows clinicians to prescribe controlled substances after conducting an initial evaluation via remote communication. In addition, the DEA waived the requirement that a clinician needs to hold a DEA license in the state where the patient is located to be able to prescribe a controlled substance electronically.^4,6 However, you still must comply with all other state laws and regulations for prescribing controlled substances.⁴

Staying informed

Although several telepsychiatry rules and regulations have been modified or suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, the standard of care for services rendered via telepsychiatry remains the same as services provided via face-to-face encounters, including patient evaluation and assessment, treatment plans, medication, and documentation.⁴ Clinicians can keep up-to-date on how practicing telepsychiatry may evolve during these times by using the following resources from the American Psychiatric Association:

• Telepsychiatry Toolkit: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry
• Practice Guidance for COVID-19: www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus/practice-guidance-for-covid-19.

Burnout among health care professionals has been increasingly recognized by the medical community over the past several years. The concern for burnout among medical students is equally serious. In this article, I review the prevalence of burnout among medical students, and the personal and clinical effects they experience. I also discuss how as psychiatry residents we can be more effective in preventing and identifying medical student burnout.

An underappreciated problem

Burnout has been defined as long-term unresolvable job stress that leads to exhaustion and feeling overwhelmed, cynical, and detached from work, and lacking a sense of personal accomplishment. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—one survey found that 5.8% of medical students had experienced suicidal ideation at some point in the previous 12 months.¹ Burnout affects not only the individual, but also his/her team and patients. One study found that compared to medical students who didn’t report burnout, medical students who did had lower scores on measures of empathy and professionalism.²

While burnout among physicians and residents has received increasing attention, it often may go unrecognized and unreported in medical students. A literature review that included 51 studies found 28% to 45% of medical students report burnout.³ In a survey at one institution, 60% of medical students reported burnout.⁴ It is evident that medical schools have an important role in helping to minimize burnout rates in their students, and many schools are working toward this goal. However, what happens when students leave the classroom setting for clinical rotations?

A recent study found burnout among medical students peaks during the third year of medical school.⁵ This is when students are on their clinical rotations, new to the hospital environment, and without the inherent structure and support of being at school.

How residents can help

Like most medical students, while on my clinical rotations, I spent most of my day with residents, and I believe residents can help to both recognize burnout in medical students and prevent it.

The first step in addressing this problem is to understand why it occurs. A survey of medical students showed that inadequate sleep and decreased exercise play a significant role in burnout rates.⁶ Another study found a correlation between burnout and feeling emotionally exhausted and a decreased perceived quality of life.⁷ A medical student I recently worked with stated, “How can you not feel burnt out? Juggling work hours, studying, debt, health, and trying to have a life… something always gets dropped.”

So as residents, what can we do to identify and assist medical students who are experiencing burnout, or are at risk of getting there? When needed, we can utilize our psychiatry training to assess our students for depression and substance use disorders, and connect them with appropriate resources. When identifying a medical student with burnout, I believe it can become necessary to notify the attending, the site director responsible for the student, and often the school, so that the student has access to all available resources.

Continue to: It's as important to be proactive...

It’s as important to be proactive as it is to be reactive. Engaging in regular check-ins with our students about self-care and workload, as well as asking about how they are feeling, can offer them opportunities to talk about issues that they might not be getting anywhere else. One medical student I worked with told me, “It’s easy to fade into the background as the student, or to feel like I can’t complain because this is just how medical school is supposed to be.” We have the ability to change this notion with each student we work with.

It is likely that as residents we have worked with a student struggling with burnout without even realizing it. I believe we can play an important role in helping to prevent burnout by identifying at-risk students, offering assistance, and encouraging them to seek professional help. Someone’s life may depend on it.

Burnout among health care professionals has been increasingly recognized by the medical community over the past several years. The concern for burnout among medical students is equally serious. In this article, I review the prevalence of burnout among medical students, and the personal and clinical effects they experience. I also discuss how as psychiatry residents we can be more effective in preventing and identifying medical student burnout.

An underappreciated problem

Burnout has been defined as long-term unresolvable job stress that leads to exhaustion and feeling overwhelmed, cynical, and detached from work, and lacking a sense of personal accomplishment. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—one survey found that 5.8% of medical students had experienced suicidal ideation at some point in the previous 12 months.¹ Burnout affects not only the individual, but also his/her team and patients. One study found that compared to medical students who didn’t report burnout, medical students who did had lower scores on measures of empathy and professionalism.²

While burnout among physicians and residents has received increasing attention, it often may go unrecognized and unreported in medical students. A literature review that included 51 studies found 28% to 45% of medical students report burnout.³ In a survey at one institution, 60% of medical students reported burnout.⁴ It is evident that medical schools have an important role in helping to minimize burnout rates in their students, and many schools are working toward this goal. However, what happens when students leave the classroom setting for clinical rotations?

A recent study found burnout among medical students peaks during the third year of medical school.⁵ This is when students are on their clinical rotations, new to the hospital environment, and without the inherent structure and support of being at school.

How residents can help

Like most medical students, while on my clinical rotations, I spent most of my day with residents, and I believe residents can help to both recognize burnout in medical students and prevent it.

The first step in addressing this problem is to understand why it occurs. A survey of medical students showed that inadequate sleep and decreased exercise play a significant role in burnout rates.⁶ Another study found a correlation between burnout and feeling emotionally exhausted and a decreased perceived quality of life.⁷ A medical student I recently worked with stated, “How can you not feel burnt out? Juggling work hours, studying, debt, health, and trying to have a life… something always gets dropped.”

So as residents, what can we do to identify and assist medical students who are experiencing burnout, or are at risk of getting there? When needed, we can utilize our psychiatry training to assess our students for depression and substance use disorders, and connect them with appropriate resources. When identifying a medical student with burnout, I believe it can become necessary to notify the attending, the site director responsible for the student, and often the school, so that the student has access to all available resources.

Continue to: It's as important to be proactive...

It’s as important to be proactive as it is to be reactive. Engaging in regular check-ins with our students about self-care and workload, as well as asking about how they are feeling, can offer them opportunities to talk about issues that they might not be getting anywhere else. One medical student I worked with told me, “It’s easy to fade into the background as the student, or to feel like I can’t complain because this is just how medical school is supposed to be.” We have the ability to change this notion with each student we work with.

It is likely that as residents we have worked with a student struggling with burnout without even realizing it. I believe we can play an important role in helping to prevent burnout by identifying at-risk students, offering assistance, and encouraging them to seek professional help. Someone’s life may depend on it.

Burnout among health care professionals has been increasingly recognized by the medical community over the past several years. The concern for burnout among medical students is equally serious. In this article, I review the prevalence of burnout among medical students, and the personal and clinical effects they experience. I also discuss how as psychiatry residents we can be more effective in preventing and identifying medical student burnout.

An underappreciated problem

Burnout has been defined as long-term unresolvable job stress that leads to exhaustion and feeling overwhelmed, cynical, and detached from work, and lacking a sense of personal accomplishment. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—one survey found that 5.8% of medical students had experienced suicidal ideation at some point in the previous 12 months.¹ Burnout affects not only the individual, but also his/her team and patients. One study found that compared to medical students who didn’t report burnout, medical students who did had lower scores on measures of empathy and professionalism.²

While burnout among physicians and residents has received increasing attention, it often may go unrecognized and unreported in medical students. A literature review that included 51 studies found 28% to 45% of medical students report burnout.³ In a survey at one institution, 60% of medical students reported burnout.⁴ It is evident that medical schools have an important role in helping to minimize burnout rates in their students, and many schools are working toward this goal. However, what happens when students leave the classroom setting for clinical rotations?

A recent study found burnout among medical students peaks during the third year of medical school.⁵ This is when students are on their clinical rotations, new to the hospital environment, and without the inherent structure and support of being at school.

How residents can help

Like most medical students, while on my clinical rotations, I spent most of my day with residents, and I believe residents can help to both recognize burnout in medical students and prevent it.

The first step in addressing this problem is to understand why it occurs. A survey of medical students showed that inadequate sleep and decreased exercise play a significant role in burnout rates.⁶ Another study found a correlation between burnout and feeling emotionally exhausted and a decreased perceived quality of life.⁷ A medical student I recently worked with stated, “How can you not feel burnt out? Juggling work hours, studying, debt, health, and trying to have a life… something always gets dropped.”

So as residents, what can we do to identify and assist medical students who are experiencing burnout, or are at risk of getting there? When needed, we can utilize our psychiatry training to assess our students for depression and substance use disorders, and connect them with appropriate resources. When identifying a medical student with burnout, I believe it can become necessary to notify the attending, the site director responsible for the student, and often the school, so that the student has access to all available resources.

Continue to: It's as important to be proactive...

It’s as important to be proactive as it is to be reactive. Engaging in regular check-ins with our students about self-care and workload, as well as asking about how they are feeling, can offer them opportunities to talk about issues that they might not be getting anywhere else. One medical student I worked with told me, “It’s easy to fade into the background as the student, or to feel like I can’t complain because this is just how medical school is supposed to be.” We have the ability to change this notion with each student we work with.

It is likely that as residents we have worked with a student struggling with burnout without even realizing it. I believe we can play an important role in helping to prevent burnout by identifying at-risk students, offering assistance, and encouraging them to seek professional help. Someone’s life may depend on it.

Our world has radically changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, and this impact has quickly transformed many lives. Whether you’re on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic or waiting in eager anticipation to return to practice, there is no denying that a few months ago we could never have imagined the health care and humanitarian crisis that is now before us. While we are united in our longing for a better time, we couldn’t be further apart socially and emotionally … and I’m not just talking about 6 feet.

One thing that has been truly striking to me is the silence. While experts have suggested there is a “silent pandemic” of mental illness on the horizon,¹ I’ve been struck by the actual silence that exists as we walk through our stores and neighborhoods. We’re not speaking to each other anymore; it’s almost as if we’re afraid to make eye contact with one another.

Humans are social creatures, and the isolation that many people are experiencing during this pandemic could have detrimental and lasting effects if we don’t take action. While I highly encourage and support efforts to employ social distancing and mitigate the spread of this illness, I’m increasingly concerned about another kind of truly silent pandemic brewing beneath the surface of the COVID-19 crisis. Even under the best conditions, many individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric disorders may lack adequate social interaction and experience feelings of isolation. These individuals need connection—not silence.

What happens to people who already felt intense isolation before COVID-19 and may have had invaluable lifelines cut off during this time of social distancing? What about individuals with alcohol or substance use disorders, or families who are sheltered in place in unsafe or violent home conditions? How can they reach out in silence? How can we help?

Fostering human connection

To address this, we must actively work to engage our patients and communities. One simple way to help is to acknowledge the people you encounter. Yes, stay 6 feet apart, and wear appropriate personal protective equipment. However, it is still OK to smile and greet someone with a nod, a smile, or a “hello.” A genuine smile can still be seen in someone’s eyes. We need these types of human connection, perhaps now more than ever before. We need each other.

Most importantly, during this time, we need to be aware of individuals who are most at risk in this silent pandemic. We can offer our patients appointments via video conferencing. We can use texting, e-mail, social media, phone calls, and video conferencing to check in with our families, friends, and neighbors. We’re at war with a terrible foe, but let’s not let the human connection become collateral damage.

Our world has radically changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, and this impact has quickly transformed many lives. Whether you’re on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic or waiting in eager anticipation to return to practice, there is no denying that a few months ago we could never have imagined the health care and humanitarian crisis that is now before us. While we are united in our longing for a better time, we couldn’t be further apart socially and emotionally … and I’m not just talking about 6 feet.

One thing that has been truly striking to me is the silence. While experts have suggested there is a “silent pandemic” of mental illness on the horizon,¹ I’ve been struck by the actual silence that exists as we walk through our stores and neighborhoods. We’re not speaking to each other anymore; it’s almost as if we’re afraid to make eye contact with one another.

Humans are social creatures, and the isolation that many people are experiencing during this pandemic could have detrimental and lasting effects if we don’t take action. While I highly encourage and support efforts to employ social distancing and mitigate the spread of this illness, I’m increasingly concerned about another kind of truly silent pandemic brewing beneath the surface of the COVID-19 crisis. Even under the best conditions, many individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric disorders may lack adequate social interaction and experience feelings of isolation. These individuals need connection—not silence.

What happens to people who already felt intense isolation before COVID-19 and may have had invaluable lifelines cut off during this time of social distancing? What about individuals with alcohol or substance use disorders, or families who are sheltered in place in unsafe or violent home conditions? How can they reach out in silence? How can we help?

Fostering human connection

To address this, we must actively work to engage our patients and communities. One simple way to help is to acknowledge the people you encounter. Yes, stay 6 feet apart, and wear appropriate personal protective equipment. However, it is still OK to smile and greet someone with a nod, a smile, or a “hello.” A genuine smile can still be seen in someone’s eyes. We need these types of human connection, perhaps now more than ever before. We need each other.

Most importantly, during this time, we need to be aware of individuals who are most at risk in this silent pandemic. We can offer our patients appointments via video conferencing. We can use texting, e-mail, social media, phone calls, and video conferencing to check in with our families, friends, and neighbors. We’re at war with a terrible foe, but let’s not let the human connection become collateral damage.

Our world has radically changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, and this impact has quickly transformed many lives. Whether you’re on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic or waiting in eager anticipation to return to practice, there is no denying that a few months ago we could never have imagined the health care and humanitarian crisis that is now before us. While we are united in our longing for a better time, we couldn’t be further apart socially and emotionally … and I’m not just talking about 6 feet.

One thing that has been truly striking to me is the silence. While experts have suggested there is a “silent pandemic” of mental illness on the horizon,¹ I’ve been struck by the actual silence that exists as we walk through our stores and neighborhoods. We’re not speaking to each other anymore; it’s almost as if we’re afraid to make eye contact with one another.

Humans are social creatures, and the isolation that many people are experiencing during this pandemic could have detrimental and lasting effects if we don’t take action. While I highly encourage and support efforts to employ social distancing and mitigate the spread of this illness, I’m increasingly concerned about another kind of truly silent pandemic brewing beneath the surface of the COVID-19 crisis. Even under the best conditions, many individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric disorders may lack adequate social interaction and experience feelings of isolation. These individuals need connection—not silence.

What happens to people who already felt intense isolation before COVID-19 and may have had invaluable lifelines cut off during this time of social distancing? What about individuals with alcohol or substance use disorders, or families who are sheltered in place in unsafe or violent home conditions? How can they reach out in silence? How can we help?

Fostering human connection

To address this, we must actively work to engage our patients and communities. One simple way to help is to acknowledge the people you encounter. Yes, stay 6 feet apart, and wear appropriate personal protective equipment. However, it is still OK to smile and greet someone with a nod, a smile, or a “hello.” A genuine smile can still be seen in someone’s eyes. We need these types of human connection, perhaps now more than ever before. We need each other.

Most importantly, during this time, we need to be aware of individuals who are most at risk in this silent pandemic. We can offer our patients appointments via video conferencing. We can use texting, e-mail, social media, phone calls, and video conferencing to check in with our families, friends, and neighbors. We’re at war with a terrible foe, but let’s not let the human connection become collateral damage.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

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.