Commentary

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

It was unthinkable, but it has happened. A virulent and invisible virus, 10 microns in size, with no vaccine or cure yet, shut down our nation, the third largest country in the world with 330 million people. Overnight, our thriving cities became ghost towns. Schools were closed. Millions of businesses, restaurants, and stores were abruptly shuttered. Sporting events were instantly canceled. Air travel came to a halt.

The largest economy in the world started to tank. Millions of people lost their jobs and were forced to stay home. The vital structures of society were dismantled. Our vibrant culture came to a screeching halt. It’s a nightmare scenario that even the most imaginative science fiction writers could not have envisioned. By any measure, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic unraveled everything, and became a human catastrophe and a social calamity reminiscent of the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, or the devastating plagues that decimated Europe during the Middle Ages.

The human toll in death and suffering was the real disaster. Emergency departments and hospitals filled up with victims of the scourge, sickly and unable to breathe as the virus hijacked their red blood cells and lungs, and destroyed their alveoli. Compounding the disaster was a lack of medical supplies. The country was clearly caught off-guard, completely unprepared for the scale of the pandemic and the massive onslaught of desperately ill people requiring intensive care and special equipment. In addition, health care staff became stretched beyond the limit, and entire hospitals were transformed overnight into highly specialized ICUs. Medical care for millions with non-COVID-19 conditions was put on hold so that vital resources could be diverted to the desperately ill victims of these infections. Many physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists—laudable heroes—succumbed to the perverse virus exhaled by their patients.

Insidious social effects

COVID-19 is not only a murderer, but also a thief. It stole our Spring; our religious holidays (Easter and Passover); classroom education in schools and colleges; the Prom; weddings; graduation ceremonies; proper funerals; concerts; football, basketball, hockey, and baseball games; Broadway shows; and even data from animal research. More important, it robbed us of our peace of mind, our liberty, and our pursuit of small pleasures such as family gatherings or schmoozing with friends at a nice restaurant. COVID-19 is a cruel, dastardly scoundrel.

I write this editorial as I sit at home, which I have not left for several weeks, like hundreds of millions in our country and around the world. We were all glued to TV news or the internet to learn about the latest updates, including the grim news of those who got infected, hospitalized, or passed away. Fear of dying permeated all age groups, especially those who were older and infirmed.

Making it worse was the relentless uncertainty. When will it end? Gradually or suddenly? When is it going to be safe to go to work again, or to visit our loved ones and our friends? When can we see our patients face-to-face instead of remotely by phone or video conferencing? When can we have live meetings instead of virtual video conferences? When will stores open so we can shop? When can we take our children or grandchildren to a baseball game or a show? Will the virus return next winter for another cycle of mayhem and social paralysis? When will the economy start to rebound, and how long will that take? Will our retirement accounts recoup their losses? So many questions with no clear answers. A malignant uncertainty, indeed.

And there are our patients who live with anxiety and depression, whose anguish is intensifying as they sit alone in their apartments or homes, struggling to cope with this sudden, overwhelming stress. How will they react to this pandemic? Obviously, a life-threatening event such as a deadly pandemic with no cure is likely to produce an acute stress reaction and, ultimately, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And if COVID-19 returns next year for another unwelcome visit, PTSD symptoms will get a booster shot and lead to severe anxiety, depression, or suicide. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, who were already stretched thin, must contend with another crisis that has destabilized millions of patients receiving psychiatric care, or new patients who seek help for themselves or their family members.

Continue to: One intervention that is emerging...

One intervention that is emerging on a large scale is online therapy. This includes reassurance and supportive therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, relaxation techniques, stress management, resilience training, mindfulness, and online group therapy. Those therapies can be effective for stress-induced anxiety and dysphoria when pharmacotherapy is not available, and can provide patients with tools and techniques that can be implemented by the patients themselves in the absence of a physician or nurse practitioner to prescribe a medication.

Lessons learned

This pandemic has taught us many lessons: that life as we know it should not be taken for granted, and can change drastically overnight; that human life is fragile and can be destroyed rapidly and ruthlessly on an unimaginable scale by an invisible enemy; that scientific drug development research by the often maligned pharmaceutical industry is indispensable to our well-being; that policymakers must always prepare for the worst and must have a well-designed disaster plan; that modifying human behavior and full compliance with public health measures are vital and can be the most effective way to prevent the spread of catastrophic pandemics, viral or otherwise; that we must all learn how to be resilient to cope with solitude and restricted mobility or socialization; that the human ingenuity and innovation that created technologies to enable virtual connectivity among us, even when we are isolated, has been a lifesaver during health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic; that the clinicians and health care workers treating highly infectious and desperately ill patients are genuine heroes who deserve our respect and gratitude; and that magnificent altruism outstrips and outshines the selfish hoarding and profiteering that may emerge during life-threatening pandemics.

And that we shall overcome this horrid pandemic, a ghastly tribulation that changed everything.

It was unthinkable, but it has happened. A virulent and invisible virus, 10 microns in size, with no vaccine or cure yet, shut down our nation, the third largest country in the world with 330 million people. Overnight, our thriving cities became ghost towns. Schools were closed. Millions of businesses, restaurants, and stores were abruptly shuttered. Sporting events were instantly canceled. Air travel came to a halt.

The largest economy in the world started to tank. Millions of people lost their jobs and were forced to stay home. The vital structures of society were dismantled. Our vibrant culture came to a screeching halt. It’s a nightmare scenario that even the most imaginative science fiction writers could not have envisioned. By any measure, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic unraveled everything, and became a human catastrophe and a social calamity reminiscent of the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, or the devastating plagues that decimated Europe during the Middle Ages.

The human toll in death and suffering was the real disaster. Emergency departments and hospitals filled up with victims of the scourge, sickly and unable to breathe as the virus hijacked their red blood cells and lungs, and destroyed their alveoli. Compounding the disaster was a lack of medical supplies. The country was clearly caught off-guard, completely unprepared for the scale of the pandemic and the massive onslaught of desperately ill people requiring intensive care and special equipment. In addition, health care staff became stretched beyond the limit, and entire hospitals were transformed overnight into highly specialized ICUs. Medical care for millions with non-COVID-19 conditions was put on hold so that vital resources could be diverted to the desperately ill victims of these infections. Many physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists—laudable heroes—succumbed to the perverse virus exhaled by their patients.

Insidious social effects

COVID-19 is not only a murderer, but also a thief. It stole our Spring; our religious holidays (Easter and Passover); classroom education in schools and colleges; the Prom; weddings; graduation ceremonies; proper funerals; concerts; football, basketball, hockey, and baseball games; Broadway shows; and even data from animal research. More important, it robbed us of our peace of mind, our liberty, and our pursuit of small pleasures such as family gatherings or schmoozing with friends at a nice restaurant. COVID-19 is a cruel, dastardly scoundrel.

I write this editorial as I sit at home, which I have not left for several weeks, like hundreds of millions in our country and around the world. We were all glued to TV news or the internet to learn about the latest updates, including the grim news of those who got infected, hospitalized, or passed away. Fear of dying permeated all age groups, especially those who were older and infirmed.

Making it worse was the relentless uncertainty. When will it end? Gradually or suddenly? When is it going to be safe to go to work again, or to visit our loved ones and our friends? When can we see our patients face-to-face instead of remotely by phone or video conferencing? When can we have live meetings instead of virtual video conferences? When will stores open so we can shop? When can we take our children or grandchildren to a baseball game or a show? Will the virus return next winter for another cycle of mayhem and social paralysis? When will the economy start to rebound, and how long will that take? Will our retirement accounts recoup their losses? So many questions with no clear answers. A malignant uncertainty, indeed.

And there are our patients who live with anxiety and depression, whose anguish is intensifying as they sit alone in their apartments or homes, struggling to cope with this sudden, overwhelming stress. How will they react to this pandemic? Obviously, a life-threatening event such as a deadly pandemic with no cure is likely to produce an acute stress reaction and, ultimately, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And if COVID-19 returns next year for another unwelcome visit, PTSD symptoms will get a booster shot and lead to severe anxiety, depression, or suicide. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, who were already stretched thin, must contend with another crisis that has destabilized millions of patients receiving psychiatric care, or new patients who seek help for themselves or their family members.

Continue to: One intervention that is emerging...

One intervention that is emerging on a large scale is online therapy. This includes reassurance and supportive therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, relaxation techniques, stress management, resilience training, mindfulness, and online group therapy. Those therapies can be effective for stress-induced anxiety and dysphoria when pharmacotherapy is not available, and can provide patients with tools and techniques that can be implemented by the patients themselves in the absence of a physician or nurse practitioner to prescribe a medication.

Lessons learned

This pandemic has taught us many lessons: that life as we know it should not be taken for granted, and can change drastically overnight; that human life is fragile and can be destroyed rapidly and ruthlessly on an unimaginable scale by an invisible enemy; that scientific drug development research by the often maligned pharmaceutical industry is indispensable to our well-being; that policymakers must always prepare for the worst and must have a well-designed disaster plan; that modifying human behavior and full compliance with public health measures are vital and can be the most effective way to prevent the spread of catastrophic pandemics, viral or otherwise; that we must all learn how to be resilient to cope with solitude and restricted mobility or socialization; that the human ingenuity and innovation that created technologies to enable virtual connectivity among us, even when we are isolated, has been a lifesaver during health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic; that the clinicians and health care workers treating highly infectious and desperately ill patients are genuine heroes who deserve our respect and gratitude; and that magnificent altruism outstrips and outshines the selfish hoarding and profiteering that may emerge during life-threatening pandemics.

And that we shall overcome this horrid pandemic, a ghastly tribulation that changed everything.

It was unthinkable, but it has happened. A virulent and invisible virus, 10 microns in size, with no vaccine or cure yet, shut down our nation, the third largest country in the world with 330 million people. Overnight, our thriving cities became ghost towns. Schools were closed. Millions of businesses, restaurants, and stores were abruptly shuttered. Sporting events were instantly canceled. Air travel came to a halt.

The largest economy in the world started to tank. Millions of people lost their jobs and were forced to stay home. The vital structures of society were dismantled. Our vibrant culture came to a screeching halt. It’s a nightmare scenario that even the most imaginative science fiction writers could not have envisioned. By any measure, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic unraveled everything, and became a human catastrophe and a social calamity reminiscent of the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, or the devastating plagues that decimated Europe during the Middle Ages.

The human toll in death and suffering was the real disaster. Emergency departments and hospitals filled up with victims of the scourge, sickly and unable to breathe as the virus hijacked their red blood cells and lungs, and destroyed their alveoli. Compounding the disaster was a lack of medical supplies. The country was clearly caught off-guard, completely unprepared for the scale of the pandemic and the massive onslaught of desperately ill people requiring intensive care and special equipment. In addition, health care staff became stretched beyond the limit, and entire hospitals were transformed overnight into highly specialized ICUs. Medical care for millions with non-COVID-19 conditions was put on hold so that vital resources could be diverted to the desperately ill victims of these infections. Many physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists—laudable heroes—succumbed to the perverse virus exhaled by their patients.

Insidious social effects

COVID-19 is not only a murderer, but also a thief. It stole our Spring; our religious holidays (Easter and Passover); classroom education in schools and colleges; the Prom; weddings; graduation ceremonies; proper funerals; concerts; football, basketball, hockey, and baseball games; Broadway shows; and even data from animal research. More important, it robbed us of our peace of mind, our liberty, and our pursuit of small pleasures such as family gatherings or schmoozing with friends at a nice restaurant. COVID-19 is a cruel, dastardly scoundrel.

I write this editorial as I sit at home, which I have not left for several weeks, like hundreds of millions in our country and around the world. We were all glued to TV news or the internet to learn about the latest updates, including the grim news of those who got infected, hospitalized, or passed away. Fear of dying permeated all age groups, especially those who were older and infirmed.

Making it worse was the relentless uncertainty. When will it end? Gradually or suddenly? When is it going to be safe to go to work again, or to visit our loved ones and our friends? When can we see our patients face-to-face instead of remotely by phone or video conferencing? When can we have live meetings instead of virtual video conferences? When will stores open so we can shop? When can we take our children or grandchildren to a baseball game or a show? Will the virus return next winter for another cycle of mayhem and social paralysis? When will the economy start to rebound, and how long will that take? Will our retirement accounts recoup their losses? So many questions with no clear answers. A malignant uncertainty, indeed.

And there are our patients who live with anxiety and depression, whose anguish is intensifying as they sit alone in their apartments or homes, struggling to cope with this sudden, overwhelming stress. How will they react to this pandemic? Obviously, a life-threatening event such as a deadly pandemic with no cure is likely to produce an acute stress reaction and, ultimately, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And if COVID-19 returns next year for another unwelcome visit, PTSD symptoms will get a booster shot and lead to severe anxiety, depression, or suicide. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, who were already stretched thin, must contend with another crisis that has destabilized millions of patients receiving psychiatric care, or new patients who seek help for themselves or their family members.

Continue to: One intervention that is emerging...

One intervention that is emerging on a large scale is online therapy. This includes reassurance and supportive therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, relaxation techniques, stress management, resilience training, mindfulness, and online group therapy. Those therapies can be effective for stress-induced anxiety and dysphoria when pharmacotherapy is not available, and can provide patients with tools and techniques that can be implemented by the patients themselves in the absence of a physician or nurse practitioner to prescribe a medication.

Lessons learned

This pandemic has taught us many lessons: that life as we know it should not be taken for granted, and can change drastically overnight; that human life is fragile and can be destroyed rapidly and ruthlessly on an unimaginable scale by an invisible enemy; that scientific drug development research by the often maligned pharmaceutical industry is indispensable to our well-being; that policymakers must always prepare for the worst and must have a well-designed disaster plan; that modifying human behavior and full compliance with public health measures are vital and can be the most effective way to prevent the spread of catastrophic pandemics, viral or otherwise; that we must all learn how to be resilient to cope with solitude and restricted mobility or socialization; that the human ingenuity and innovation that created technologies to enable virtual connectivity among us, even when we are isolated, has been a lifesaver during health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic; that the clinicians and health care workers treating highly infectious and desperately ill patients are genuine heroes who deserve our respect and gratitude; and that magnificent altruism outstrips and outshines the selfish hoarding and profiteering that may emerge during life-threatening pandemics.

And that we shall overcome this horrid pandemic, a ghastly tribulation that changed everything.

Testosterone normally decreases with age in men beginning in their mid-30s, with a rate of decline averaging approximately 1.6% per year. Using a cutoff of a total testosterone less than 325 ng/dL, the incidence of low testosterone is approximately 20% after age 60 years, and 30% after age 70. While the change in labs values has been reasonably validated, there is some uncertainty about whether many of the symptoms that are sometimes attributed to testosterone deficiency, including fatigue and decreased muscle mass, are actually caused by low testosterone.

Additional potential symptoms of testosterone deficiency include changes in bone mineral density, decreased libido, depression, erectile dysfunction, loss of hair, and general weakness. Since the symptoms are nonspecific, it is often unclear if someone should be tested or treated for testosterone deficiency. To address this issue, the American College of Physicians commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on testosterone-replacement therapy for age-related testosterone deficiency.¹

The evidence review of testosterone replacement in men with age-related low testosterone found the following.

• Low-certainty evidence of improvement in quality of life
• Moderate-certainty evidence of a small improvement in sexual function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small improvement in erectile function
• Low-certainty evidence showing little to no improvement in physical function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small increase to no difference in adverse cardiovascular events
• Moderate-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk for serious adverse events

The trials were not powered to assess mortality, but pool analysis showed fewer deaths among patients treated with testosterone than those who received placebo (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.89). There were no differences in cognitive function, and the improvement in vitality and fatigue was “less than a small amount.” Evidence from an observational trial showed no increased risk for mortality, cardiovascular events, prostate cancer, or pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Of note, most studies excluded men with recent cardiovascular disease.

This evidence review led to the following recommendations.²

Recommendation 1a

Clinicians should have a discussion regarding the potential risk and benefits of treatment with the patients who have documented age-related low testosterone (testosterone levels less than 10.4 nmol/L or 300 ng/dL) and are suffering from sexual dysfunction or have a desire to enhance their sexual function.

This recommendation was based on evidence showing small improvement in sexual function and erectile dysfunction.

Recommendation 1b

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, clinicians should reevaluate the benefit of treatment within 12 months. If a patient is not receiving any benefit in sexual function by 12 months, it is recommended that treatment be stopped at that time.

The ACP recommendation to stop treatment if a patient lacks improvement of sexual function within 12 months stems from low or insufficient evidence regarding potential harm of treatment. If the treatment is not helping the target symptom then the benefit no longer outweighs the potential harm.

Recommendation 1c

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, intramuscular replacement therapy rather than transdermal replacement therapy is recommended because of substantial differences in the cost.

It is important to note that both intramuscular and transdermal testosterone applications have been associated with improvements in sexual function, without any significant differences noted in benefit or harm for the patients. This recommendation is based on a per-person per-year average cost of the intramuscular formulation – $156.32, compared with the transdermal formulation – $2,135.32.

Recommendation 2

The ACP does not endorse the use of testosterone treatment for age-related low testosterone in patients desiring improvement in physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

This clear recommendation is critical, as this might be the most common reason for prescriptions of testosterone – a misplaced belief that testosterone will help general quality of life. The evidence simply does not support this effect of testosterone replacement for age-related testosterone deficiency.

The bottom line

Testosterone levels in men decrease steadily with age, with a great deal of variability. Testosterone replacement therapy may be considered for men with age-related testosterone deficiency and sexual dysfunction. Testosterone replacement therapy is not recommended as a treatment for general fatigue, weakness or with an expectation that it will improve physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

Dr. Hansen is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

References

1. Diem SJ et al. Efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in men: An evidence report for a clinical practice guideline by the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0830.

2. Qaseem A et al. Testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone: A clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0882.

Testosterone normally decreases with age in men beginning in their mid-30s, with a rate of decline averaging approximately 1.6% per year. Using a cutoff of a total testosterone less than 325 ng/dL, the incidence of low testosterone is approximately 20% after age 60 years, and 30% after age 70. While the change in labs values has been reasonably validated, there is some uncertainty about whether many of the symptoms that are sometimes attributed to testosterone deficiency, including fatigue and decreased muscle mass, are actually caused by low testosterone.

Additional potential symptoms of testosterone deficiency include changes in bone mineral density, decreased libido, depression, erectile dysfunction, loss of hair, and general weakness. Since the symptoms are nonspecific, it is often unclear if someone should be tested or treated for testosterone deficiency. To address this issue, the American College of Physicians commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on testosterone-replacement therapy for age-related testosterone deficiency.¹

The evidence review of testosterone replacement in men with age-related low testosterone found the following.

• Low-certainty evidence of improvement in quality of life
• Moderate-certainty evidence of a small improvement in sexual function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small improvement in erectile function
• Low-certainty evidence showing little to no improvement in physical function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small increase to no difference in adverse cardiovascular events
• Moderate-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk for serious adverse events

The trials were not powered to assess mortality, but pool analysis showed fewer deaths among patients treated with testosterone than those who received placebo (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.89). There were no differences in cognitive function, and the improvement in vitality and fatigue was “less than a small amount.” Evidence from an observational trial showed no increased risk for mortality, cardiovascular events, prostate cancer, or pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Of note, most studies excluded men with recent cardiovascular disease.

This evidence review led to the following recommendations.²

Recommendation 1a

Clinicians should have a discussion regarding the potential risk and benefits of treatment with the patients who have documented age-related low testosterone (testosterone levels less than 10.4 nmol/L or 300 ng/dL) and are suffering from sexual dysfunction or have a desire to enhance their sexual function.

This recommendation was based on evidence showing small improvement in sexual function and erectile dysfunction.

Recommendation 1b

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, clinicians should reevaluate the benefit of treatment within 12 months. If a patient is not receiving any benefit in sexual function by 12 months, it is recommended that treatment be stopped at that time.

The ACP recommendation to stop treatment if a patient lacks improvement of sexual function within 12 months stems from low or insufficient evidence regarding potential harm of treatment. If the treatment is not helping the target symptom then the benefit no longer outweighs the potential harm.

Recommendation 1c

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, intramuscular replacement therapy rather than transdermal replacement therapy is recommended because of substantial differences in the cost.

It is important to note that both intramuscular and transdermal testosterone applications have been associated with improvements in sexual function, without any significant differences noted in benefit or harm for the patients. This recommendation is based on a per-person per-year average cost of the intramuscular formulation – $156.32, compared with the transdermal formulation – $2,135.32.

Recommendation 2

The ACP does not endorse the use of testosterone treatment for age-related low testosterone in patients desiring improvement in physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

This clear recommendation is critical, as this might be the most common reason for prescriptions of testosterone – a misplaced belief that testosterone will help general quality of life. The evidence simply does not support this effect of testosterone replacement for age-related testosterone deficiency.

The bottom line

Testosterone levels in men decrease steadily with age, with a great deal of variability. Testosterone replacement therapy may be considered for men with age-related testosterone deficiency and sexual dysfunction. Testosterone replacement therapy is not recommended as a treatment for general fatigue, weakness or with an expectation that it will improve physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

Dr. Hansen is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

References

1. Diem SJ et al. Efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in men: An evidence report for a clinical practice guideline by the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0830.

2. Qaseem A et al. Testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone: A clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0882.

Testosterone normally decreases with age in men beginning in their mid-30s, with a rate of decline averaging approximately 1.6% per year. Using a cutoff of a total testosterone less than 325 ng/dL, the incidence of low testosterone is approximately 20% after age 60 years, and 30% after age 70. While the change in labs values has been reasonably validated, there is some uncertainty about whether many of the symptoms that are sometimes attributed to testosterone deficiency, including fatigue and decreased muscle mass, are actually caused by low testosterone.

Additional potential symptoms of testosterone deficiency include changes in bone mineral density, decreased libido, depression, erectile dysfunction, loss of hair, and general weakness. Since the symptoms are nonspecific, it is often unclear if someone should be tested or treated for testosterone deficiency. To address this issue, the American College of Physicians commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on testosterone-replacement therapy for age-related testosterone deficiency.¹

The evidence review of testosterone replacement in men with age-related low testosterone found the following.

• Low-certainty evidence of improvement in quality of life
• Moderate-certainty evidence of a small improvement in sexual function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small improvement in erectile function
• Low-certainty evidence showing little to no improvement in physical function
• Low-certainty evidence of a small increase to no difference in adverse cardiovascular events
• Moderate-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk for serious adverse events

The trials were not powered to assess mortality, but pool analysis showed fewer deaths among patients treated with testosterone than those who received placebo (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.89). There were no differences in cognitive function, and the improvement in vitality and fatigue was “less than a small amount.” Evidence from an observational trial showed no increased risk for mortality, cardiovascular events, prostate cancer, or pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Of note, most studies excluded men with recent cardiovascular disease.

This evidence review led to the following recommendations.²

Recommendation 1a

Clinicians should have a discussion regarding the potential risk and benefits of treatment with the patients who have documented age-related low testosterone (testosterone levels less than 10.4 nmol/L or 300 ng/dL) and are suffering from sexual dysfunction or have a desire to enhance their sexual function.

This recommendation was based on evidence showing small improvement in sexual function and erectile dysfunction.

Recommendation 1b

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, clinicians should reevaluate the benefit of treatment within 12 months. If a patient is not receiving any benefit in sexual function by 12 months, it is recommended that treatment be stopped at that time.

The ACP recommendation to stop treatment if a patient lacks improvement of sexual function within 12 months stems from low or insufficient evidence regarding potential harm of treatment. If the treatment is not helping the target symptom then the benefit no longer outweighs the potential harm.

Recommendation 1c

For patients who opt for treatment based on recommendation 1a, intramuscular replacement therapy rather than transdermal replacement therapy is recommended because of substantial differences in the cost.

It is important to note that both intramuscular and transdermal testosterone applications have been associated with improvements in sexual function, without any significant differences noted in benefit or harm for the patients. This recommendation is based on a per-person per-year average cost of the intramuscular formulation – $156.32, compared with the transdermal formulation – $2,135.32.

Recommendation 2

The ACP does not endorse the use of testosterone treatment for age-related low testosterone in patients desiring improvement in physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

This clear recommendation is critical, as this might be the most common reason for prescriptions of testosterone – a misplaced belief that testosterone will help general quality of life. The evidence simply does not support this effect of testosterone replacement for age-related testosterone deficiency.

The bottom line

Testosterone levels in men decrease steadily with age, with a great deal of variability. Testosterone replacement therapy may be considered for men with age-related testosterone deficiency and sexual dysfunction. Testosterone replacement therapy is not recommended as a treatment for general fatigue, weakness or with an expectation that it will improve physical function, mood, energy, or cognitive function.

Dr. Hansen is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

References

1. Diem SJ et al. Efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in men: An evidence report for a clinical practice guideline by the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0830.

2. Qaseem A et al. Testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone: A clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M19-0882.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

It is difficult right now to contemplate issues other than battling COVID-19. However, we must not lose sight of another worldwide crisis that, unless we confront it head-on, will be with us long after the pandemic is behind us. That crisis is climate change. Increased susceptibility to pandemics is likely to be a consequence of it. Unlike pandemics, climate change poses an even more long-term and pervasive existential threat to both our mental and physical health, and our existences. Many more of us who live in Australia now fear that climate change is upon us and here to stay.

Daniiielc/iStock/Getty Images

Droughts, no stranger to Australians, often are punctuated by dramatic floods, and we are now dealing with extended summer seasons filled with bushfires. We are experienced in managing them. These fires are usually limited to a few different states, so fire crews typically help one another out as they are controlled and extinguished. Australians pull together with great community spirit and resilience under these circumstances.

But the last two fire seasons have been different. They have become unseasonably long, more severe, and often uncontrollable and overwhelming. We have experienced two uncharacteristically prolonged droughts, more recently creeping across most of our continent. Last spring, wild fires took hold very early and were ubiquitous, increasing during the unusually high summer heat. Climate change already had worsened our accustomed pattern of droughts, fires, and floods.

Meanwhile, the Australian federal government repeatedly ignored advice from highly respected meteorological, environmental, scientific, and economic experts.¹

Warnings from experts

The state fire commissioners had formally warned our government of increasing vulnerability via climate change to bushfires. This occurred in the context of government inaction, lack of national investment (for example, insufficient water bombing equipment), and the absence of national preparation for the predicted catastrophic fire season. Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to meet with them, minimizing the role of climate change. He provided no extra resources, emphatically leaving the responsibility to state governments.²

Distinguished economist Ross Garnaut concluded that Australia could lead the world in renewable energy production and harness it for industries and employment, if only the government chose to invest in our ample renewable sources. Sadly, our conservative government and its corporate sponsors maintain an addiction to fossil fuels, arguing that they protect employment. Meanwhile, the economic “trickle-down” benefit from massive coal and gas exports has been illusory. Socioeconomic inequities have widened, with profits favoring the mega-rich, while mining automation takes jobs.

With the fire emergency crisis at its height, Mr. Morrison sent his energy minister to the U.N. Madrid Climate Change Conference with the goal of preventing meaningful CO₂ reductions, in collaboration with Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

The sustained drought and desiccated vegetation, the escalating fuel load growth, and early hot weather led to super-hot fires, with catapulted ember attacks and fireballs falling from the sky, which burned down thousands of homes and incinerated livestock. The fires led to numerous human fatalities and overloaded hospital burn units. The unprecedented fire season duration and uncontrollable fires exhausted voluntary fire crews. There have even been fires in cool damp rain forests – the usual refuge/reservoir of endangered flora and fauna species.

The simultaneous droughts, unusual heat, and pervasive smoke also badly affect major cities, and intense fires terrorized the entire nation. Consequently, regional firefighting teams were unable to help other regions. Huge, unquenchable fires created spiraling micro-weather systems, with thunderstorms spitting dry lightning, sparking new fires and twisters, tornadoes, and updrafts hurtling heavy fire trucks into the air, which caused terrible injuries and death to fire crews. Ultimately, the federal government had to supply large-scale sea and air evacuations, and call up military reservists for civic duties.
 

Mental health implications

In 2007, Australian Glenn Albrecht defined “solastalgia” as the emotional pain, existential distress, loss, and grieving derived from rapid and severe changes in one’s geophysical environment or familiar habitat.³ Studies now support its existence worldwide in communities suffering great environmental change, indicating its contribution to climate change’s psychosocial impacts.⁴ Mental health studies also recognize the reality of “eco-anxiety,” defined as “a chronic fear of ecological doom” for self, family, community, future generations, and our planet.⁵

Other climate-derived psychiatric consequences include trauma, which leads to lifelong consequences for survivors of fires; grief associated with lost lives, homes, and livelihoods; posttraumatic hyperarousal; hypervigilance, re-experiencing, and rekindling; anxiety; depression; substance misuse; and long-term cognitive impacts of poor air quality. These effects are all borne from anticipated and actual loss, uncertainty about the future, and distrust in the capacity of leadership to aid recovery or prevent future recurrences. The Australian government has announced commendable, but long overdue, funds for psychological first aid, counseling, telepsychiatry, and support for developing community cohesion and resilience for first responders, young people, and badly affected rural families and communities. However, those efforts do nothing to prevent the ongoing shift of resources away from rural community mental health services, which results in severe depletion of community mental health teams, often in the very locations and communities that are suffering most from bushfires. This forces affected communities to rely on less reliable and time-limited telehealth assessments and other online services conducted by strangers, rather than more familiar and engaging in-person services – thus betraying community expectations of continuity of care and support.

While we observe our country’s path to a fateful rendezvous with an rapidly accelerating climate emergency, we can only hope that Australia and the world beyond can awaken to its reality, immediacy, extremity, and persistence and to the compelling need for serious constructive responses. It is finally dawning on the easy-going and complacent Australian public that climate change is here to stay, fully formed, as a runaway, spiraling vicious cycle – unpredictable and uncontrolled. This is not “the new normal”: It can only get worse, unless and until the nations of the world move collaboratively beyond their denial to ensure the survival of the planet and our species.

So, rather than just exemplifying a tragic casualty of rampant climate change for the world, maybe we can transform this catastrophe into an opportunity to collectively wake us up. Only then, can Australia ultimately become a positive example of developing a full national awareness of the reality and severity of the threat. Hopefully, we Australians will then commit ourselves to a full share of the global effort needed to effectively address our climate’s dire last-ditch warnings to us all.
 

References

1. Easton S. “ ‘Ignored and trivialized’: Experts warned Australian government before catastrophic blazes.” NBCnews.com. 2020 Feb 9.

2. Rouse A. “Scott Morrison defends why he refused to meet former fire chiefs who warned him about horror season – as he defends his handling of bushfire crisis.” Daily Mail Australia. 2020 Jan 3.

3. Albrecht G et al. Australas Psychiatry. 2007;15 Supp1:S95-8.

4. Prescott SL et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 5;16(21).

5. Usher K et al. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019. Dec;28(6):1233-4.

Dr. Rosen, an officer of the Order of Australia and a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, is affiliated with the Brain & Mind Centre, University of Sydney, and the Institute of Mental Health at the University of Wollongong, Australia. He also is a community psychiatrist in a remote region of New South Wales, Australia. Dr. Rosen has no conflicts of interest. In Part 2, he discusses the impact of the fires on Australia’s indigenous population.

It is difficult right now to contemplate issues other than battling COVID-19. However, we must not lose sight of another worldwide crisis that, unless we confront it head-on, will be with us long after the pandemic is behind us. That crisis is climate change. Increased susceptibility to pandemics is likely to be a consequence of it. Unlike pandemics, climate change poses an even more long-term and pervasive existential threat to both our mental and physical health, and our existences. Many more of us who live in Australia now fear that climate change is upon us and here to stay.

Daniiielc/iStock/Getty Images

Droughts, no stranger to Australians, often are punctuated by dramatic floods, and we are now dealing with extended summer seasons filled with bushfires. We are experienced in managing them. These fires are usually limited to a few different states, so fire crews typically help one another out as they are controlled and extinguished. Australians pull together with great community spirit and resilience under these circumstances.

But the last two fire seasons have been different. They have become unseasonably long, more severe, and often uncontrollable and overwhelming. We have experienced two uncharacteristically prolonged droughts, more recently creeping across most of our continent. Last spring, wild fires took hold very early and were ubiquitous, increasing during the unusually high summer heat. Climate change already had worsened our accustomed pattern of droughts, fires, and floods.

Meanwhile, the Australian federal government repeatedly ignored advice from highly respected meteorological, environmental, scientific, and economic experts.¹

Warnings from experts

The state fire commissioners had formally warned our government of increasing vulnerability via climate change to bushfires. This occurred in the context of government inaction, lack of national investment (for example, insufficient water bombing equipment), and the absence of national preparation for the predicted catastrophic fire season. Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to meet with them, minimizing the role of climate change. He provided no extra resources, emphatically leaving the responsibility to state governments.²

Distinguished economist Ross Garnaut concluded that Australia could lead the world in renewable energy production and harness it for industries and employment, if only the government chose to invest in our ample renewable sources. Sadly, our conservative government and its corporate sponsors maintain an addiction to fossil fuels, arguing that they protect employment. Meanwhile, the economic “trickle-down” benefit from massive coal and gas exports has been illusory. Socioeconomic inequities have widened, with profits favoring the mega-rich, while mining automation takes jobs.

With the fire emergency crisis at its height, Mr. Morrison sent his energy minister to the U.N. Madrid Climate Change Conference with the goal of preventing meaningful CO₂ reductions, in collaboration with Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

The sustained drought and desiccated vegetation, the escalating fuel load growth, and early hot weather led to super-hot fires, with catapulted ember attacks and fireballs falling from the sky, which burned down thousands of homes and incinerated livestock. The fires led to numerous human fatalities and overloaded hospital burn units. The unprecedented fire season duration and uncontrollable fires exhausted voluntary fire crews. There have even been fires in cool damp rain forests – the usual refuge/reservoir of endangered flora and fauna species.

The simultaneous droughts, unusual heat, and pervasive smoke also badly affect major cities, and intense fires terrorized the entire nation. Consequently, regional firefighting teams were unable to help other regions. Huge, unquenchable fires created spiraling micro-weather systems, with thunderstorms spitting dry lightning, sparking new fires and twisters, tornadoes, and updrafts hurtling heavy fire trucks into the air, which caused terrible injuries and death to fire crews. Ultimately, the federal government had to supply large-scale sea and air evacuations, and call up military reservists for civic duties.
 

Mental health implications

In 2007, Australian Glenn Albrecht defined “solastalgia” as the emotional pain, existential distress, loss, and grieving derived from rapid and severe changes in one’s geophysical environment or familiar habitat.³ Studies now support its existence worldwide in communities suffering great environmental change, indicating its contribution to climate change’s psychosocial impacts.⁴ Mental health studies also recognize the reality of “eco-anxiety,” defined as “a chronic fear of ecological doom” for self, family, community, future generations, and our planet.⁵

Other climate-derived psychiatric consequences include trauma, which leads to lifelong consequences for survivors of fires; grief associated with lost lives, homes, and livelihoods; posttraumatic hyperarousal; hypervigilance, re-experiencing, and rekindling; anxiety; depression; substance misuse; and long-term cognitive impacts of poor air quality. These effects are all borne from anticipated and actual loss, uncertainty about the future, and distrust in the capacity of leadership to aid recovery or prevent future recurrences. The Australian government has announced commendable, but long overdue, funds for psychological first aid, counseling, telepsychiatry, and support for developing community cohesion and resilience for first responders, young people, and badly affected rural families and communities. However, those efforts do nothing to prevent the ongoing shift of resources away from rural community mental health services, which results in severe depletion of community mental health teams, often in the very locations and communities that are suffering most from bushfires. This forces affected communities to rely on less reliable and time-limited telehealth assessments and other online services conducted by strangers, rather than more familiar and engaging in-person services – thus betraying community expectations of continuity of care and support.

While we observe our country’s path to a fateful rendezvous with an rapidly accelerating climate emergency, we can only hope that Australia and the world beyond can awaken to its reality, immediacy, extremity, and persistence and to the compelling need for serious constructive responses. It is finally dawning on the easy-going and complacent Australian public that climate change is here to stay, fully formed, as a runaway, spiraling vicious cycle – unpredictable and uncontrolled. This is not “the new normal”: It can only get worse, unless and until the nations of the world move collaboratively beyond their denial to ensure the survival of the planet and our species.

So, rather than just exemplifying a tragic casualty of rampant climate change for the world, maybe we can transform this catastrophe into an opportunity to collectively wake us up. Only then, can Australia ultimately become a positive example of developing a full national awareness of the reality and severity of the threat. Hopefully, we Australians will then commit ourselves to a full share of the global effort needed to effectively address our climate’s dire last-ditch warnings to us all.
 

References

1. Easton S. “ ‘Ignored and trivialized’: Experts warned Australian government before catastrophic blazes.” NBCnews.com. 2020 Feb 9.

2. Rouse A. “Scott Morrison defends why he refused to meet former fire chiefs who warned him about horror season – as he defends his handling of bushfire crisis.” Daily Mail Australia. 2020 Jan 3.

3. Albrecht G et al. Australas Psychiatry. 2007;15 Supp1:S95-8.

4. Prescott SL et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 5;16(21).

5. Usher K et al. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019. Dec;28(6):1233-4.

Dr. Rosen, an officer of the Order of Australia and a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, is affiliated with the Brain & Mind Centre, University of Sydney, and the Institute of Mental Health at the University of Wollongong, Australia. He also is a community psychiatrist in a remote region of New South Wales, Australia. Dr. Rosen has no conflicts of interest. In Part 2, he discusses the impact of the fires on Australia’s indigenous population.

It is difficult right now to contemplate issues other than battling COVID-19. However, we must not lose sight of another worldwide crisis that, unless we confront it head-on, will be with us long after the pandemic is behind us. That crisis is climate change. Increased susceptibility to pandemics is likely to be a consequence of it. Unlike pandemics, climate change poses an even more long-term and pervasive existential threat to both our mental and physical health, and our existences. Many more of us who live in Australia now fear that climate change is upon us and here to stay.

Daniiielc/iStock/Getty Images

Droughts, no stranger to Australians, often are punctuated by dramatic floods, and we are now dealing with extended summer seasons filled with bushfires. We are experienced in managing them. These fires are usually limited to a few different states, so fire crews typically help one another out as they are controlled and extinguished. Australians pull together with great community spirit and resilience under these circumstances.

But the last two fire seasons have been different. They have become unseasonably long, more severe, and often uncontrollable and overwhelming. We have experienced two uncharacteristically prolonged droughts, more recently creeping across most of our continent. Last spring, wild fires took hold very early and were ubiquitous, increasing during the unusually high summer heat. Climate change already had worsened our accustomed pattern of droughts, fires, and floods.

Meanwhile, the Australian federal government repeatedly ignored advice from highly respected meteorological, environmental, scientific, and economic experts.¹

Warnings from experts

The state fire commissioners had formally warned our government of increasing vulnerability via climate change to bushfires. This occurred in the context of government inaction, lack of national investment (for example, insufficient water bombing equipment), and the absence of national preparation for the predicted catastrophic fire season. Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to meet with them, minimizing the role of climate change. He provided no extra resources, emphatically leaving the responsibility to state governments.²

Distinguished economist Ross Garnaut concluded that Australia could lead the world in renewable energy production and harness it for industries and employment, if only the government chose to invest in our ample renewable sources. Sadly, our conservative government and its corporate sponsors maintain an addiction to fossil fuels, arguing that they protect employment. Meanwhile, the economic “trickle-down” benefit from massive coal and gas exports has been illusory. Socioeconomic inequities have widened, with profits favoring the mega-rich, while mining automation takes jobs.

With the fire emergency crisis at its height, Mr. Morrison sent his energy minister to the U.N. Madrid Climate Change Conference with the goal of preventing meaningful CO₂ reductions, in collaboration with Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

The sustained drought and desiccated vegetation, the escalating fuel load growth, and early hot weather led to super-hot fires, with catapulted ember attacks and fireballs falling from the sky, which burned down thousands of homes and incinerated livestock. The fires led to numerous human fatalities and overloaded hospital burn units. The unprecedented fire season duration and uncontrollable fires exhausted voluntary fire crews. There have even been fires in cool damp rain forests – the usual refuge/reservoir of endangered flora and fauna species.

The simultaneous droughts, unusual heat, and pervasive smoke also badly affect major cities, and intense fires terrorized the entire nation. Consequently, regional firefighting teams were unable to help other regions. Huge, unquenchable fires created spiraling micro-weather systems, with thunderstorms spitting dry lightning, sparking new fires and twisters, tornadoes, and updrafts hurtling heavy fire trucks into the air, which caused terrible injuries and death to fire crews. Ultimately, the federal government had to supply large-scale sea and air evacuations, and call up military reservists for civic duties.
 

Mental health implications

In 2007, Australian Glenn Albrecht defined “solastalgia” as the emotional pain, existential distress, loss, and grieving derived from rapid and severe changes in one’s geophysical environment or familiar habitat.³ Studies now support its existence worldwide in communities suffering great environmental change, indicating its contribution to climate change’s psychosocial impacts.⁴ Mental health studies also recognize the reality of “eco-anxiety,” defined as “a chronic fear of ecological doom” for self, family, community, future generations, and our planet.⁵

Other climate-derived psychiatric consequences include trauma, which leads to lifelong consequences for survivors of fires; grief associated with lost lives, homes, and livelihoods; posttraumatic hyperarousal; hypervigilance, re-experiencing, and rekindling; anxiety; depression; substance misuse; and long-term cognitive impacts of poor air quality. These effects are all borne from anticipated and actual loss, uncertainty about the future, and distrust in the capacity of leadership to aid recovery or prevent future recurrences. The Australian government has announced commendable, but long overdue, funds for psychological first aid, counseling, telepsychiatry, and support for developing community cohesion and resilience for first responders, young people, and badly affected rural families and communities. However, those efforts do nothing to prevent the ongoing shift of resources away from rural community mental health services, which results in severe depletion of community mental health teams, often in the very locations and communities that are suffering most from bushfires. This forces affected communities to rely on less reliable and time-limited telehealth assessments and other online services conducted by strangers, rather than more familiar and engaging in-person services – thus betraying community expectations of continuity of care and support.

While we observe our country’s path to a fateful rendezvous with an rapidly accelerating climate emergency, we can only hope that Australia and the world beyond can awaken to its reality, immediacy, extremity, and persistence and to the compelling need for serious constructive responses. It is finally dawning on the easy-going and complacent Australian public that climate change is here to stay, fully formed, as a runaway, spiraling vicious cycle – unpredictable and uncontrolled. This is not “the new normal”: It can only get worse, unless and until the nations of the world move collaboratively beyond their denial to ensure the survival of the planet and our species.

So, rather than just exemplifying a tragic casualty of rampant climate change for the world, maybe we can transform this catastrophe into an opportunity to collectively wake us up. Only then, can Australia ultimately become a positive example of developing a full national awareness of the reality and severity of the threat. Hopefully, we Australians will then commit ourselves to a full share of the global effort needed to effectively address our climate’s dire last-ditch warnings to us all.
 

References

1. Easton S. “ ‘Ignored and trivialized’: Experts warned Australian government before catastrophic blazes.” NBCnews.com. 2020 Feb 9.

2. Rouse A. “Scott Morrison defends why he refused to meet former fire chiefs who warned him about horror season – as he defends his handling of bushfire crisis.” Daily Mail Australia. 2020 Jan 3.

3. Albrecht G et al. Australas Psychiatry. 2007;15 Supp1:S95-8.

4. Prescott SL et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 5;16(21).

5. Usher K et al. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019. Dec;28(6):1233-4.

Dr. Rosen, an officer of the Order of Australia and a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, is affiliated with the Brain & Mind Centre, University of Sydney, and the Institute of Mental Health at the University of Wollongong, Australia. He also is a community psychiatrist in a remote region of New South Wales, Australia. Dr. Rosen has no conflicts of interest. In Part 2, he discusses the impact of the fires on Australia’s indigenous population.