Commentary

A policy of universal screening of pregnant women for the COVID-19 virus identified a high proportion of women who tested positive and were asymptomatic, based on data from 215 pregnant women in New York City.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“The obstetrical population presents a unique challenge during this pandemic, since these patients have multiple interactions with the health care system and eventually most are admitted to the hospital for delivery,” wrote Desmond Sutton, MD, and colleagues at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York

In a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reviewed their experiences with 215 pregnant women who delivered infants during March 22–April 4, 2020, at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All the women were screened for symptoms of the COVID-19 infection on admission.

Overall, four women (1.9%) had fevers or other symptoms on admission, and all of these women tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19. The other 211 women were afebrile and asymptomatic at admission, and 210 of them were tested via nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 29 asymptomatic women (13.7%) tested positive for COVID-19 infection.

“Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Three of the 29 COVID-19-positive women who were asymptomatic on admission developed fevers before they were discharged from the hospital after a median stay of 2 days. Of these, two received antibiotics for presumed endomyometritis and one patient with presumed COVID-19 infection received supportive care. In addition, one patient who was initially negative developed COVID-19 symptoms after delivery and tested positive 3 days after her initial negative test.

“Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues said.

Although their numbers may not be generalizable to areas with lower infection rates, they highlight the risk of COVID-19 infection in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

“The potential benefits of a universal testing approach include the ability to use COVID-19 status to determine hospital isolation practices and bed assignments, inform neonatal care, and guide the use of personal protective equipment,” they concluded.
 

Continuing challenges

“What I have seen in our institute is the debate about rapid testing and the inherent problems with false negatives and false positives,” Catherine Cansino, MD, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I think there is definitely a role for universal testing, especially in areas with high prevalence,” and the New York clinicians have made a strong case.

However, the challenge remains of obtaining quick test results that would still be reliable, as many rapid tests have a false-negative rate of as much as 20%, noted Dr. Cansino, who was not involved in the New York study.

Her institution is using a test with a higher level of accuracy, “but it can take several hours or a day to get the results,” at which point the women may have gone through labor and delivery and been in contact with multiple health care workers who have used personal protective equipment accordingly if they don’t know a patient’s status.

To help guide policies, Dr. Cansino said that outcome data would be useful. “It’s hard to know how outcomes are different, and it would be good to know how transmission rates differ between symptomatic carriers and those who are asymptomatic.”

“As SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, continues to spread, pregnant women remain a unique population with required frequent health system contacts and ultimate need for delivery,” Iris Krishna, MD, of the Emory Healthcare Network in Atlanta, said in an interview. “This report in a high prevalence area demonstrated 1 out of 8 asymptomatic pregnant patients presenting for delivery were SARS-CoV-2 positive, illustrating a need for universal screening.

“As this pandemic evolves, we are learning more and more, and it is important to expand our understanding of asymptomatic transmission and the risk this may pose,” said Dr. Krishna, who was not part of the New York study.

“Key benefits to universal screening are the capability for labor and delivery units to implement best hospital practices in their care of mothers and babies, such as admitting positive patients to cohort units,” she noted. Such units would “allow for closer monitoring of mothers and babies, as well as ensuring proper use of personal protective equipment by health care teams” and also would help preserve supplies of personal protective equipment.

Dr. Krishna cited hospital testing capacity as an obvious barrier to universal screening of pregnant women, as well as factors including the need for additional protective equipment to be used during swab collection. Also, “If you get a negative result and there is a strong suspicion for COVID-19 infection, when do you retest?” she asked. “These are key questions or areas of assessment that should be considered before embarking on universal screening for pregnant women.” In addition, some patients may refuse testing out of fear of stigma or separation from their newborn.

“Implementing an ‘opt out’ approach to screening is encouraged, whereby a patient is informed that a test will be included in standard preventive screening, and they may decline the test,” Dr. Krishna said. “Routine, opt-out screening approaches have proven to be highly effective as it removes the stigma associated with testing, fosters earlier diagnosis and treatment, reduces risk of transmission, and has proven to be cost effective. Pregnant women should be reassured that universal screening is beneficial for their care and the care of their newborn baby,” she emphasized.

“Institutions should consider implementing universal screening on labor and delivery as several geographic areas are predicted to reach their peak time of COVID-19 transmission, and it is clear that asymptomatic individuals continue to play a role in its transmission,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

Dr. Sutton and associates had no financial conflicts to disclose. Neither Dr. Cansino nor Dr. Krishna had any financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Krishna are members of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

SOURCE: Sutton D et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009316.

A policy of universal screening of pregnant women for the COVID-19 virus identified a high proportion of women who tested positive and were asymptomatic, based on data from 215 pregnant women in New York City.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“The obstetrical population presents a unique challenge during this pandemic, since these patients have multiple interactions with the health care system and eventually most are admitted to the hospital for delivery,” wrote Desmond Sutton, MD, and colleagues at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York

In a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reviewed their experiences with 215 pregnant women who delivered infants during March 22–April 4, 2020, at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All the women were screened for symptoms of the COVID-19 infection on admission.

Overall, four women (1.9%) had fevers or other symptoms on admission, and all of these women tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19. The other 211 women were afebrile and asymptomatic at admission, and 210 of them were tested via nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 29 asymptomatic women (13.7%) tested positive for COVID-19 infection.

“Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Three of the 29 COVID-19-positive women who were asymptomatic on admission developed fevers before they were discharged from the hospital after a median stay of 2 days. Of these, two received antibiotics for presumed endomyometritis and one patient with presumed COVID-19 infection received supportive care. In addition, one patient who was initially negative developed COVID-19 symptoms after delivery and tested positive 3 days after her initial negative test.

“Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues said.

Although their numbers may not be generalizable to areas with lower infection rates, they highlight the risk of COVID-19 infection in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

“The potential benefits of a universal testing approach include the ability to use COVID-19 status to determine hospital isolation practices and bed assignments, inform neonatal care, and guide the use of personal protective equipment,” they concluded.
 

Continuing challenges

“What I have seen in our institute is the debate about rapid testing and the inherent problems with false negatives and false positives,” Catherine Cansino, MD, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I think there is definitely a role for universal testing, especially in areas with high prevalence,” and the New York clinicians have made a strong case.

However, the challenge remains of obtaining quick test results that would still be reliable, as many rapid tests have a false-negative rate of as much as 20%, noted Dr. Cansino, who was not involved in the New York study.

Her institution is using a test with a higher level of accuracy, “but it can take several hours or a day to get the results,” at which point the women may have gone through labor and delivery and been in contact with multiple health care workers who have used personal protective equipment accordingly if they don’t know a patient’s status.

To help guide policies, Dr. Cansino said that outcome data would be useful. “It’s hard to know how outcomes are different, and it would be good to know how transmission rates differ between symptomatic carriers and those who are asymptomatic.”

“As SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, continues to spread, pregnant women remain a unique population with required frequent health system contacts and ultimate need for delivery,” Iris Krishna, MD, of the Emory Healthcare Network in Atlanta, said in an interview. “This report in a high prevalence area demonstrated 1 out of 8 asymptomatic pregnant patients presenting for delivery were SARS-CoV-2 positive, illustrating a need for universal screening.

“As this pandemic evolves, we are learning more and more, and it is important to expand our understanding of asymptomatic transmission and the risk this may pose,” said Dr. Krishna, who was not part of the New York study.

“Key benefits to universal screening are the capability for labor and delivery units to implement best hospital practices in their care of mothers and babies, such as admitting positive patients to cohort units,” she noted. Such units would “allow for closer monitoring of mothers and babies, as well as ensuring proper use of personal protective equipment by health care teams” and also would help preserve supplies of personal protective equipment.

Dr. Krishna cited hospital testing capacity as an obvious barrier to universal screening of pregnant women, as well as factors including the need for additional protective equipment to be used during swab collection. Also, “If you get a negative result and there is a strong suspicion for COVID-19 infection, when do you retest?” she asked. “These are key questions or areas of assessment that should be considered before embarking on universal screening for pregnant women.” In addition, some patients may refuse testing out of fear of stigma or separation from their newborn.

“Implementing an ‘opt out’ approach to screening is encouraged, whereby a patient is informed that a test will be included in standard preventive screening, and they may decline the test,” Dr. Krishna said. “Routine, opt-out screening approaches have proven to be highly effective as it removes the stigma associated with testing, fosters earlier diagnosis and treatment, reduces risk of transmission, and has proven to be cost effective. Pregnant women should be reassured that universal screening is beneficial for their care and the care of their newborn baby,” she emphasized.

“Institutions should consider implementing universal screening on labor and delivery as several geographic areas are predicted to reach their peak time of COVID-19 transmission, and it is clear that asymptomatic individuals continue to play a role in its transmission,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

Dr. Sutton and associates had no financial conflicts to disclose. Neither Dr. Cansino nor Dr. Krishna had any financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Krishna are members of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

SOURCE: Sutton D et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009316.

A policy of universal screening of pregnant women for the COVID-19 virus identified a high proportion of women who tested positive and were asymptomatic, based on data from 215 pregnant women in New York City.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“The obstetrical population presents a unique challenge during this pandemic, since these patients have multiple interactions with the health care system and eventually most are admitted to the hospital for delivery,” wrote Desmond Sutton, MD, and colleagues at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York

In a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reviewed their experiences with 215 pregnant women who delivered infants during March 22–April 4, 2020, at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All the women were screened for symptoms of the COVID-19 infection on admission.

Overall, four women (1.9%) had fevers or other symptoms on admission, and all of these women tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19. The other 211 women were afebrile and asymptomatic at admission, and 210 of them were tested via nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 29 asymptomatic women (13.7%) tested positive for COVID-19 infection.

“Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Three of the 29 COVID-19-positive women who were asymptomatic on admission developed fevers before they were discharged from the hospital after a median stay of 2 days. Of these, two received antibiotics for presumed endomyometritis and one patient with presumed COVID-19 infection received supportive care. In addition, one patient who was initially negative developed COVID-19 symptoms after delivery and tested positive 3 days after her initial negative test.

“Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues said.

Although their numbers may not be generalizable to areas with lower infection rates, they highlight the risk of COVID-19 infection in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

“The potential benefits of a universal testing approach include the ability to use COVID-19 status to determine hospital isolation practices and bed assignments, inform neonatal care, and guide the use of personal protective equipment,” they concluded.
 

Continuing challenges

“What I have seen in our institute is the debate about rapid testing and the inherent problems with false negatives and false positives,” Catherine Cansino, MD, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I think there is definitely a role for universal testing, especially in areas with high prevalence,” and the New York clinicians have made a strong case.

However, the challenge remains of obtaining quick test results that would still be reliable, as many rapid tests have a false-negative rate of as much as 20%, noted Dr. Cansino, who was not involved in the New York study.

Her institution is using a test with a higher level of accuracy, “but it can take several hours or a day to get the results,” at which point the women may have gone through labor and delivery and been in contact with multiple health care workers who have used personal protective equipment accordingly if they don’t know a patient’s status.

To help guide policies, Dr. Cansino said that outcome data would be useful. “It’s hard to know how outcomes are different, and it would be good to know how transmission rates differ between symptomatic carriers and those who are asymptomatic.”

“As SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, continues to spread, pregnant women remain a unique population with required frequent health system contacts and ultimate need for delivery,” Iris Krishna, MD, of the Emory Healthcare Network in Atlanta, said in an interview. “This report in a high prevalence area demonstrated 1 out of 8 asymptomatic pregnant patients presenting for delivery were SARS-CoV-2 positive, illustrating a need for universal screening.

“As this pandemic evolves, we are learning more and more, and it is important to expand our understanding of asymptomatic transmission and the risk this may pose,” said Dr. Krishna, who was not part of the New York study.

“Key benefits to universal screening are the capability for labor and delivery units to implement best hospital practices in their care of mothers and babies, such as admitting positive patients to cohort units,” she noted. Such units would “allow for closer monitoring of mothers and babies, as well as ensuring proper use of personal protective equipment by health care teams” and also would help preserve supplies of personal protective equipment.

Dr. Krishna cited hospital testing capacity as an obvious barrier to universal screening of pregnant women, as well as factors including the need for additional protective equipment to be used during swab collection. Also, “If you get a negative result and there is a strong suspicion for COVID-19 infection, when do you retest?” she asked. “These are key questions or areas of assessment that should be considered before embarking on universal screening for pregnant women.” In addition, some patients may refuse testing out of fear of stigma or separation from their newborn.

“Implementing an ‘opt out’ approach to screening is encouraged, whereby a patient is informed that a test will be included in standard preventive screening, and they may decline the test,” Dr. Krishna said. “Routine, opt-out screening approaches have proven to be highly effective as it removes the stigma associated with testing, fosters earlier diagnosis and treatment, reduces risk of transmission, and has proven to be cost effective. Pregnant women should be reassured that universal screening is beneficial for their care and the care of their newborn baby,” she emphasized.

“Institutions should consider implementing universal screening on labor and delivery as several geographic areas are predicted to reach their peak time of COVID-19 transmission, and it is clear that asymptomatic individuals continue to play a role in its transmission,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

Dr. Sutton and associates had no financial conflicts to disclose. Neither Dr. Cansino nor Dr. Krishna had any financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Krishna are members of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

SOURCE: Sutton D et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009316.

“I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.” – John F. Kennedy, inaugural address

COVID-19 has changed our world. Social distancing is now the norm and flattening the curve is our motto. Family physicians’ place on the front line of medicine is more important now than it has ever been.

In the Pennsylvania community in which we work, the first person to don protective gear and sample patients for viral testing in a rapidly organized COVID-19 testing site was John Russell, MD, a family physician. When I asked him about his experience, Dr. Russell said: “No one became a fireman to get cats out of trees ... it was to fight fires. As doctors, this is the same idea ... this is a chance to help fight the fires in our community.”

And, of course, it is primary care providers – family physicians, internists, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses – who day in and day out are putting aside their own fears, while dealing with those of their family, to come to work with a sense of purpose and courage.

The military uses the term “operational tempo” to describe the speed and intensity of actions relative to the speed and intensity of unfolding events in the operational environment. Family physicians are being asked to work at an increased speed in unfamiliar terrain as our environments change by the hour. The challenge is to answer the call – and take care of ourselves – in unprecedented ways. We often use anticipatory guidance with our patients to help prepare them for the challenges they will face. So too must we anticipate the things we will need to be attentive to in the coming months in order to sustain the effort that will be required of us.

With this in mind, we would be wise to consider developing plans in three domains: physical, mental, and social.

With gyms closed and restaurants limiting their offerings to take-out, this is an opportune time to create an exercise regimen at home and experiment with healthy meal options. YouTube videos abound for workouts of every length. And of course, you can simply take a daily walk, go for a run, or take a bike ride. Similarly, good choices can be made with take-out and the foods we prepare at home.

To take care of our mental health, we need to have the discipline to take breaks, delegate when necessary, and use downtime to clear our minds. Need another option? Consider meditation. Google “best meditation apps” and take your pick.

From a social standpoint, we must be proactive about preventing emotional isolation. Technology allows us to connect with others through messaging and face-to-face video. We need to remember to regularly check in with those we care about; few things in life are as affirming as the connections with those who are close to us: ­family, coworkers, and patients.

Out of crisis comes opportunity. Should we be quarantined, we can remind ourselves that Sir Isaac Newton, while in quarantine during the bubonic plague, laid the foundation for classical physics, composed theories on light and optics, and penned his first draft of the law of gravity.¹

Life carries on amidst the ­pandemic. Even though the current focus is on the ­COVID-19 crisis, our many needs, joys, and challenges as human beings remain. Today, someone will find out she is pregnant and someone else will be diagnosed with cancer, plan a wedding, or attend the funeral of a loved one. We, as family physicians, have the training to lead with courage and empathy. We have the expertise gained through years of helping patients though diverse physical and emotional challenges.

We will continue to listen to our patients’ stories, diagnose and treat their diseases, and take steps to bring a sense of calm to the chaos around us. We need to be mindful of our own mindset, because we have a choice. As the psychologist Victor Frankl said in 1946 after being liberated from the concentration camps, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”²
 

A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Journal of Family Practice (J Fam Pract. 2020 April;69[3]:119,153).

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Aaron Sutton is a behavioral health consultant and faculty member in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Brockell G. “During a pandemic, Isaac Newton had to work from home, too. He used the time wisely.” The Washington Post. 2020 Mar 12.

2. Frankl VE. “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

“I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.” – John F. Kennedy, inaugural address

COVID-19 has changed our world. Social distancing is now the norm and flattening the curve is our motto. Family physicians’ place on the front line of medicine is more important now than it has ever been.

In the Pennsylvania community in which we work, the first person to don protective gear and sample patients for viral testing in a rapidly organized COVID-19 testing site was John Russell, MD, a family physician. When I asked him about his experience, Dr. Russell said: “No one became a fireman to get cats out of trees ... it was to fight fires. As doctors, this is the same idea ... this is a chance to help fight the fires in our community.”

And, of course, it is primary care providers – family physicians, internists, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses – who day in and day out are putting aside their own fears, while dealing with those of their family, to come to work with a sense of purpose and courage.

The military uses the term “operational tempo” to describe the speed and intensity of actions relative to the speed and intensity of unfolding events in the operational environment. Family physicians are being asked to work at an increased speed in unfamiliar terrain as our environments change by the hour. The challenge is to answer the call – and take care of ourselves – in unprecedented ways. We often use anticipatory guidance with our patients to help prepare them for the challenges they will face. So too must we anticipate the things we will need to be attentive to in the coming months in order to sustain the effort that will be required of us.

With this in mind, we would be wise to consider developing plans in three domains: physical, mental, and social.

With gyms closed and restaurants limiting their offerings to take-out, this is an opportune time to create an exercise regimen at home and experiment with healthy meal options. YouTube videos abound for workouts of every length. And of course, you can simply take a daily walk, go for a run, or take a bike ride. Similarly, good choices can be made with take-out and the foods we prepare at home.

To take care of our mental health, we need to have the discipline to take breaks, delegate when necessary, and use downtime to clear our minds. Need another option? Consider meditation. Google “best meditation apps” and take your pick.

From a social standpoint, we must be proactive about preventing emotional isolation. Technology allows us to connect with others through messaging and face-to-face video. We need to remember to regularly check in with those we care about; few things in life are as affirming as the connections with those who are close to us: ­family, coworkers, and patients.

Out of crisis comes opportunity. Should we be quarantined, we can remind ourselves that Sir Isaac Newton, while in quarantine during the bubonic plague, laid the foundation for classical physics, composed theories on light and optics, and penned his first draft of the law of gravity.¹

Life carries on amidst the ­pandemic. Even though the current focus is on the ­COVID-19 crisis, our many needs, joys, and challenges as human beings remain. Today, someone will find out she is pregnant and someone else will be diagnosed with cancer, plan a wedding, or attend the funeral of a loved one. We, as family physicians, have the training to lead with courage and empathy. We have the expertise gained through years of helping patients though diverse physical and emotional challenges.

We will continue to listen to our patients’ stories, diagnose and treat their diseases, and take steps to bring a sense of calm to the chaos around us. We need to be mindful of our own mindset, because we have a choice. As the psychologist Victor Frankl said in 1946 after being liberated from the concentration camps, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”²
 

A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Journal of Family Practice (J Fam Pract. 2020 April;69[3]:119,153).

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Aaron Sutton is a behavioral health consultant and faculty member in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Brockell G. “During a pandemic, Isaac Newton had to work from home, too. He used the time wisely.” The Washington Post. 2020 Mar 12.

2. Frankl VE. “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

“I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.” – John F. Kennedy, inaugural address

COVID-19 has changed our world. Social distancing is now the norm and flattening the curve is our motto. Family physicians’ place on the front line of medicine is more important now than it has ever been.

In the Pennsylvania community in which we work, the first person to don protective gear and sample patients for viral testing in a rapidly organized COVID-19 testing site was John Russell, MD, a family physician. When I asked him about his experience, Dr. Russell said: “No one became a fireman to get cats out of trees ... it was to fight fires. As doctors, this is the same idea ... this is a chance to help fight the fires in our community.”

And, of course, it is primary care providers – family physicians, internists, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses – who day in and day out are putting aside their own fears, while dealing with those of their family, to come to work with a sense of purpose and courage.

The military uses the term “operational tempo” to describe the speed and intensity of actions relative to the speed and intensity of unfolding events in the operational environment. Family physicians are being asked to work at an increased speed in unfamiliar terrain as our environments change by the hour. The challenge is to answer the call – and take care of ourselves – in unprecedented ways. We often use anticipatory guidance with our patients to help prepare them for the challenges they will face. So too must we anticipate the things we will need to be attentive to in the coming months in order to sustain the effort that will be required of us.

With this in mind, we would be wise to consider developing plans in three domains: physical, mental, and social.

With gyms closed and restaurants limiting their offerings to take-out, this is an opportune time to create an exercise regimen at home and experiment with healthy meal options. YouTube videos abound for workouts of every length. And of course, you can simply take a daily walk, go for a run, or take a bike ride. Similarly, good choices can be made with take-out and the foods we prepare at home.

To take care of our mental health, we need to have the discipline to take breaks, delegate when necessary, and use downtime to clear our minds. Need another option? Consider meditation. Google “best meditation apps” and take your pick.

From a social standpoint, we must be proactive about preventing emotional isolation. Technology allows us to connect with others through messaging and face-to-face video. We need to remember to regularly check in with those we care about; few things in life are as affirming as the connections with those who are close to us: ­family, coworkers, and patients.

Out of crisis comes opportunity. Should we be quarantined, we can remind ourselves that Sir Isaac Newton, while in quarantine during the bubonic plague, laid the foundation for classical physics, composed theories on light and optics, and penned his first draft of the law of gravity.¹

Life carries on amidst the ­pandemic. Even though the current focus is on the ­COVID-19 crisis, our many needs, joys, and challenges as human beings remain. Today, someone will find out she is pregnant and someone else will be diagnosed with cancer, plan a wedding, or attend the funeral of a loved one. We, as family physicians, have the training to lead with courage and empathy. We have the expertise gained through years of helping patients though diverse physical and emotional challenges.

We will continue to listen to our patients’ stories, diagnose and treat their diseases, and take steps to bring a sense of calm to the chaos around us. We need to be mindful of our own mindset, because we have a choice. As the psychologist Victor Frankl said in 1946 after being liberated from the concentration camps, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”²
 

A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Journal of Family Practice (J Fam Pract. 2020 April;69[3]:119,153).

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Aaron Sutton is a behavioral health consultant and faculty member in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Brockell G. “During a pandemic, Isaac Newton had to work from home, too. He used the time wisely.” The Washington Post. 2020 Mar 12.

2. Frankl VE. “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

COVID-19 has prompted many changes in pediatric health care. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes, necessity is the motivator for the long-past-due adoption of a previous invention, such as telemedicine for minor illnesses. And sometimes necessity reminds us about what is really important in a world of high technology.

Nicola Marfisi/AGF/Universal Images Group/Science Source

Unlike our nearly overwhelmed internal medicine, ED, and family physician colleagues, many pediatricians are in a lull that threatens the financial viability of our practices. We are postponing annual well visits. We have fewer sick visits and hospitalizations since respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza also have been reduced by social distancing. Parents are avoiding the risk of contagion in the waiting room and not bringing their children in for minor complaints. There is more telemedicine – a welcome change in financing and practice whose time has come, but was being delayed by lack of insurance coverage.

Technology has allowed clinicians to respond to the pandemic in ways that would not have been possible a few years ago. Online tools, such as subscription email lists, webinars, and electronic medical news services, provide updates when the information changes weekly on the virus’s contagiousness, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, prevalence, the effectiveness of masks, and experimental treatment options. These changes have been so fast that many journal articles based on data from China were obsolete and contradicted before they appeared in print.

However, technology only helped us to more effectively do what we needed to do in the first place – come together in a world of physical distancing and work toward common goals. In many hospitals, pediatric wards were emptied by reduced RSV admissions and postponed elective surgeries. These units have been converted to accept adult patients up to age 30 or 40 years. Our med-peds colleagues quickly created webinars and online resource packages on topics pediatric hospitalists might need to care for that population. There were refresher courses on ventilator management and reminders that community pediatric hospitalists, who in the winter might have one-third of their admissions with RSV, have more experience managing viral pneumonia than the internists.

Ward teams were created with a pediatric attending and an internal medicine resident. The resident’s familiarity with the names of blood pressure medicines complemented the attending’s years of clinical judgment and bedside manner. People are stepping out of their comfort zones but initial reports from the front lines are that, with each other’s support, we’ve got this.

Mistakes in telemedicine are being made, shared, and learned from. Emergency physicians are collecting anecdotes of situations when things were missed or treatment delayed. Surgeons report seeing increased numbers of cases in which the diagnosis of appendicitis was delayed, which isn’t surprising when a pediatrician cannot lay hands on the belly. Perhaps any case in which a parent calls a second or third time should be seen in the flesh.

Some newborn nurseries are discharging mother and baby at 24 hours after birth and rediscovering what was learned about that practice, which became common in the 1990s. It works well for the vast majority of babies, but we need to be ready to detect the occasional jaundiced baby or the one where breastfeeding isn’t going well. The gray-haired pediatricians can recall those nuances.

Another key role is to help everyone process the frequent deaths during a pandemic. First, there are the families we care for. Children are losing grandparents with little warning. Parents may be overwhelmed with grief while ill themselves. That makes children vulnerable.

Our medical system in 2 months has moved heaven and earth – and significantly harmed the medical care and financial future of our children – trying to assure that every 80-year-old has the right to die while attached to a ventilator, even though only a small fraction of them will survive to discharge. Meanwhile, on the wards, visitation policies have people deteriorating and dying alone. I find this paradigm distressing and antithetical to my training.

Medicine and nursing both have long histories in which the practitioner recognized that there was little they could do to prevent the death. Their role was to compassionately guide the family through it. For some people, this connection is the most precious of the arts of medicine and nursing. We need to reexamine our values. We need to get creative. We need to involve palliative care experts and clergy with the same urgency with which we have automakers making ventilators.

Second, there are our colleagues. Pediatric caregivers, particularly trainees, rarely encounter deaths and can benefit from debriefing sessions, even short ones. There is comfort in having a colleague review the situation and say: “There was nothing you could have done.” Or even: “That minor omission did not alter the outcome.” Even when everything was done properly, deaths cause moral suffering that needs processing and healing. Even if you don’t have magic words to give, just being present aids in the healing. We are all in this, together.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

COVID-19 has prompted many changes in pediatric health care. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes, necessity is the motivator for the long-past-due adoption of a previous invention, such as telemedicine for minor illnesses. And sometimes necessity reminds us about what is really important in a world of high technology.

Nicola Marfisi/AGF/Universal Images Group/Science Source

Unlike our nearly overwhelmed internal medicine, ED, and family physician colleagues, many pediatricians are in a lull that threatens the financial viability of our practices. We are postponing annual well visits. We have fewer sick visits and hospitalizations since respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza also have been reduced by social distancing. Parents are avoiding the risk of contagion in the waiting room and not bringing their children in for minor complaints. There is more telemedicine – a welcome change in financing and practice whose time has come, but was being delayed by lack of insurance coverage.

Technology has allowed clinicians to respond to the pandemic in ways that would not have been possible a few years ago. Online tools, such as subscription email lists, webinars, and electronic medical news services, provide updates when the information changes weekly on the virus’s contagiousness, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, prevalence, the effectiveness of masks, and experimental treatment options. These changes have been so fast that many journal articles based on data from China were obsolete and contradicted before they appeared in print.

However, technology only helped us to more effectively do what we needed to do in the first place – come together in a world of physical distancing and work toward common goals. In many hospitals, pediatric wards were emptied by reduced RSV admissions and postponed elective surgeries. These units have been converted to accept adult patients up to age 30 or 40 years. Our med-peds colleagues quickly created webinars and online resource packages on topics pediatric hospitalists might need to care for that population. There were refresher courses on ventilator management and reminders that community pediatric hospitalists, who in the winter might have one-third of their admissions with RSV, have more experience managing viral pneumonia than the internists.

Ward teams were created with a pediatric attending and an internal medicine resident. The resident’s familiarity with the names of blood pressure medicines complemented the attending’s years of clinical judgment and bedside manner. People are stepping out of their comfort zones but initial reports from the front lines are that, with each other’s support, we’ve got this.

Mistakes in telemedicine are being made, shared, and learned from. Emergency physicians are collecting anecdotes of situations when things were missed or treatment delayed. Surgeons report seeing increased numbers of cases in which the diagnosis of appendicitis was delayed, which isn’t surprising when a pediatrician cannot lay hands on the belly. Perhaps any case in which a parent calls a second or third time should be seen in the flesh.

Some newborn nurseries are discharging mother and baby at 24 hours after birth and rediscovering what was learned about that practice, which became common in the 1990s. It works well for the vast majority of babies, but we need to be ready to detect the occasional jaundiced baby or the one where breastfeeding isn’t going well. The gray-haired pediatricians can recall those nuances.

Another key role is to help everyone process the frequent deaths during a pandemic. First, there are the families we care for. Children are losing grandparents with little warning. Parents may be overwhelmed with grief while ill themselves. That makes children vulnerable.

Our medical system in 2 months has moved heaven and earth – and significantly harmed the medical care and financial future of our children – trying to assure that every 80-year-old has the right to die while attached to a ventilator, even though only a small fraction of them will survive to discharge. Meanwhile, on the wards, visitation policies have people deteriorating and dying alone. I find this paradigm distressing and antithetical to my training.

Medicine and nursing both have long histories in which the practitioner recognized that there was little they could do to prevent the death. Their role was to compassionately guide the family through it. For some people, this connection is the most precious of the arts of medicine and nursing. We need to reexamine our values. We need to get creative. We need to involve palliative care experts and clergy with the same urgency with which we have automakers making ventilators.

Second, there are our colleagues. Pediatric caregivers, particularly trainees, rarely encounter deaths and can benefit from debriefing sessions, even short ones. There is comfort in having a colleague review the situation and say: “There was nothing you could have done.” Or even: “That minor omission did not alter the outcome.” Even when everything was done properly, deaths cause moral suffering that needs processing and healing. Even if you don’t have magic words to give, just being present aids in the healing. We are all in this, together.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

COVID-19 has prompted many changes in pediatric health care. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes, necessity is the motivator for the long-past-due adoption of a previous invention, such as telemedicine for minor illnesses. And sometimes necessity reminds us about what is really important in a world of high technology.

Nicola Marfisi/AGF/Universal Images Group/Science Source

Unlike our nearly overwhelmed internal medicine, ED, and family physician colleagues, many pediatricians are in a lull that threatens the financial viability of our practices. We are postponing annual well visits. We have fewer sick visits and hospitalizations since respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza also have been reduced by social distancing. Parents are avoiding the risk of contagion in the waiting room and not bringing their children in for minor complaints. There is more telemedicine – a welcome change in financing and practice whose time has come, but was being delayed by lack of insurance coverage.

Technology has allowed clinicians to respond to the pandemic in ways that would not have been possible a few years ago. Online tools, such as subscription email lists, webinars, and electronic medical news services, provide updates when the information changes weekly on the virus’s contagiousness, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, prevalence, the effectiveness of masks, and experimental treatment options. These changes have been so fast that many journal articles based on data from China were obsolete and contradicted before they appeared in print.

However, technology only helped us to more effectively do what we needed to do in the first place – come together in a world of physical distancing and work toward common goals. In many hospitals, pediatric wards were emptied by reduced RSV admissions and postponed elective surgeries. These units have been converted to accept adult patients up to age 30 or 40 years. Our med-peds colleagues quickly created webinars and online resource packages on topics pediatric hospitalists might need to care for that population. There were refresher courses on ventilator management and reminders that community pediatric hospitalists, who in the winter might have one-third of their admissions with RSV, have more experience managing viral pneumonia than the internists.

Ward teams were created with a pediatric attending and an internal medicine resident. The resident’s familiarity with the names of blood pressure medicines complemented the attending’s years of clinical judgment and bedside manner. People are stepping out of their comfort zones but initial reports from the front lines are that, with each other’s support, we’ve got this.

Mistakes in telemedicine are being made, shared, and learned from. Emergency physicians are collecting anecdotes of situations when things were missed or treatment delayed. Surgeons report seeing increased numbers of cases in which the diagnosis of appendicitis was delayed, which isn’t surprising when a pediatrician cannot lay hands on the belly. Perhaps any case in which a parent calls a second or third time should be seen in the flesh.

Some newborn nurseries are discharging mother and baby at 24 hours after birth and rediscovering what was learned about that practice, which became common in the 1990s. It works well for the vast majority of babies, but we need to be ready to detect the occasional jaundiced baby or the one where breastfeeding isn’t going well. The gray-haired pediatricians can recall those nuances.

Another key role is to help everyone process the frequent deaths during a pandemic. First, there are the families we care for. Children are losing grandparents with little warning. Parents may be overwhelmed with grief while ill themselves. That makes children vulnerable.

Our medical system in 2 months has moved heaven and earth – and significantly harmed the medical care and financial future of our children – trying to assure that every 80-year-old has the right to die while attached to a ventilator, even though only a small fraction of them will survive to discharge. Meanwhile, on the wards, visitation policies have people deteriorating and dying alone. I find this paradigm distressing and antithetical to my training.

Medicine and nursing both have long histories in which the practitioner recognized that there was little they could do to prevent the death. Their role was to compassionately guide the family through it. For some people, this connection is the most precious of the arts of medicine and nursing. We need to reexamine our values. We need to get creative. We need to involve palliative care experts and clergy with the same urgency with which we have automakers making ventilators.

Second, there are our colleagues. Pediatric caregivers, particularly trainees, rarely encounter deaths and can benefit from debriefing sessions, even short ones. There is comfort in having a colleague review the situation and say: “There was nothing you could have done.” Or even: “That minor omission did not alter the outcome.” Even when everything was done properly, deaths cause moral suffering that needs processing and healing. Even if you don’t have magic words to give, just being present aids in the healing. We are all in this, together.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Two of the most unusual dermatologic drugs have resurged as possible first-line therapy for rescue treatment of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, despite extremely limited clinical data supporting their efficacy, optimal dose, treatment duration, and potential adverse effects.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were introduced as treatment and prophylaxis of malaria and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1949 and 1955, respectively. They belong to a class of drugs called 4-aminoquinolones and have a flat aromatic core and a basic side chain. The basic property of these drugs contribute to their ability to accumulate in lysosomes. They have a large volume of distribution in the blood and a half-life of 40-60 days. Important interactions include use with tamoxifen, proton pump inhibitors, and with smoking. Although both drugs cross the placenta, they don’t have any notable effects on the fetus.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine enter the cell and accumulate in the lysosomes along a pH gradient. Within the lysosome, they increase the pH, thereby stabilizing lysosomes and inhibiting eosinophil and neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytic activity. They also inhibit complement-mediated hemolysis, reduce acute phase reactants, and prevent MHC class II–mediated auto antigen presentation. Additionally, they decrease cell-mediated immunity by decreasing the production of interleukin-1 and plasma cell synthesis. Hydroxychloroquine can also accumulate in endosomes and inhibit toll-like receptor signaling, thereby reducing the production of proinflammatory cytokines.

One of the ways SARS-CoV-2 enters cells is by up-regulating and binding to ACE2. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine reduce glycosylation of ACE2 and thus inhibit viral entry. Additionally, by increasing the endosomal pH, they potentially inactivate enzymes that viruses require for replication. Their lifesaving benefits, however, are thought to involve blocking the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6 and suppressing the cytokine storm thought to induce acute respiratory distress syndrome. Interestingly, chloroquine has also been shown to allow zinc ions into the cell, and zinc is a potent inhibitor of coronavirus RNA polymerase.

Side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine include GI upset, retinal toxicity with long-term use, hypoglycemia, cardiomyopathy, QT prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias, and renal and liver toxicity. Adverse effects have been observed with long-term daily doses of more than 3.5 mg/kg of chloroquine or more than 6.5 mg/kg of hydroxychloroquine. Cutaneous effects include pruritus, morbilliform rashes (in an estimated 10% of those treated) and psoriasis flares, and blue-black hyperpigmentation (in about 25%) of the shins, face, oral palate, and nails.

Initial in vitro studies first showed evidence of the ability of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral activity. In February 2020, the first clinical results of 100 patients treated with chloroquine were reported in a news briefing by the Chinese government. On March 20, the first clinical trial was published offering guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination therapy – albeit with many limitations and reported biases in the study. Despite the poorly designed studies and inconclusive evidence, on March 28, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization that allows providers to request a supply of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are unable to join a clinical trial.

On April 2, the first clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 began at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. The ORCHID trial (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Among In-patients With Symptomatic Disease), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This blinded, placebo-controlled study is evaluating hydroxychloroquine treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in hopes of treating the severe complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants are randomly assigned to receive 400 mg hydroxychloroquine twice daily as a loading dose and then 200 mg twice daily thereafter on days 2-5. As of this writing, this study is currently underway and outcomes are expected in the upcoming weeks.

There is now a shortage of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in patients who have severe dermatologic and rheumatologic diseases, which include some who been in remission for years because of these medications and are in grave danger of recurrence. During this crisis, we desperately need well-controlled, randomized studies to test the efficacy and prolonged safety profile of these drugs in COVID-19 patients, as well as appropriate funding to source these medications for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients in need.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

Sources

Liu J et al. Cell Discov. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41421-020-0156-0.

Vincent MJ et al. Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69.

Gautret P et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949.

Devaux CA et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

Aronson J et al. COVID-19 trials registered up to 8 March 2020 – an analysis of 382 studies. 2020. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19/covid-19-registered-trials-and-analysis/

Savarino A et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 Nov;3(11):722-7.

Yazdany J, Kim AHJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.7326/M20-1334.

Xue J et al. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 1;9(10):e109180.

te Velthuis AJ et al. PLoS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.

Two of the most unusual dermatologic drugs have resurged as possible first-line therapy for rescue treatment of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, despite extremely limited clinical data supporting their efficacy, optimal dose, treatment duration, and potential adverse effects.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were introduced as treatment and prophylaxis of malaria and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1949 and 1955, respectively. They belong to a class of drugs called 4-aminoquinolones and have a flat aromatic core and a basic side chain. The basic property of these drugs contribute to their ability to accumulate in lysosomes. They have a large volume of distribution in the blood and a half-life of 40-60 days. Important interactions include use with tamoxifen, proton pump inhibitors, and with smoking. Although both drugs cross the placenta, they don’t have any notable effects on the fetus.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine enter the cell and accumulate in the lysosomes along a pH gradient. Within the lysosome, they increase the pH, thereby stabilizing lysosomes and inhibiting eosinophil and neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytic activity. They also inhibit complement-mediated hemolysis, reduce acute phase reactants, and prevent MHC class II–mediated auto antigen presentation. Additionally, they decrease cell-mediated immunity by decreasing the production of interleukin-1 and plasma cell synthesis. Hydroxychloroquine can also accumulate in endosomes and inhibit toll-like receptor signaling, thereby reducing the production of proinflammatory cytokines.

One of the ways SARS-CoV-2 enters cells is by up-regulating and binding to ACE2. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine reduce glycosylation of ACE2 and thus inhibit viral entry. Additionally, by increasing the endosomal pH, they potentially inactivate enzymes that viruses require for replication. Their lifesaving benefits, however, are thought to involve blocking the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6 and suppressing the cytokine storm thought to induce acute respiratory distress syndrome. Interestingly, chloroquine has also been shown to allow zinc ions into the cell, and zinc is a potent inhibitor of coronavirus RNA polymerase.

Side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine include GI upset, retinal toxicity with long-term use, hypoglycemia, cardiomyopathy, QT prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias, and renal and liver toxicity. Adverse effects have been observed with long-term daily doses of more than 3.5 mg/kg of chloroquine or more than 6.5 mg/kg of hydroxychloroquine. Cutaneous effects include pruritus, morbilliform rashes (in an estimated 10% of those treated) and psoriasis flares, and blue-black hyperpigmentation (in about 25%) of the shins, face, oral palate, and nails.

Initial in vitro studies first showed evidence of the ability of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral activity. In February 2020, the first clinical results of 100 patients treated with chloroquine were reported in a news briefing by the Chinese government. On March 20, the first clinical trial was published offering guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination therapy – albeit with many limitations and reported biases in the study. Despite the poorly designed studies and inconclusive evidence, on March 28, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization that allows providers to request a supply of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are unable to join a clinical trial.

On April 2, the first clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 began at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. The ORCHID trial (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Among In-patients With Symptomatic Disease), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This blinded, placebo-controlled study is evaluating hydroxychloroquine treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in hopes of treating the severe complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants are randomly assigned to receive 400 mg hydroxychloroquine twice daily as a loading dose and then 200 mg twice daily thereafter on days 2-5. As of this writing, this study is currently underway and outcomes are expected in the upcoming weeks.

There is now a shortage of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in patients who have severe dermatologic and rheumatologic diseases, which include some who been in remission for years because of these medications and are in grave danger of recurrence. During this crisis, we desperately need well-controlled, randomized studies to test the efficacy and prolonged safety profile of these drugs in COVID-19 patients, as well as appropriate funding to source these medications for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients in need.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

Sources

Liu J et al. Cell Discov. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41421-020-0156-0.

Vincent MJ et al. Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69.

Gautret P et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949.

Devaux CA et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

Aronson J et al. COVID-19 trials registered up to 8 March 2020 – an analysis of 382 studies. 2020. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19/covid-19-registered-trials-and-analysis/

Savarino A et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 Nov;3(11):722-7.

Yazdany J, Kim AHJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.7326/M20-1334.

Xue J et al. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 1;9(10):e109180.

te Velthuis AJ et al. PLoS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.

Two of the most unusual dermatologic drugs have resurged as possible first-line therapy for rescue treatment of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, despite extremely limited clinical data supporting their efficacy, optimal dose, treatment duration, and potential adverse effects.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were introduced as treatment and prophylaxis of malaria and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1949 and 1955, respectively. They belong to a class of drugs called 4-aminoquinolones and have a flat aromatic core and a basic side chain. The basic property of these drugs contribute to their ability to accumulate in lysosomes. They have a large volume of distribution in the blood and a half-life of 40-60 days. Important interactions include use with tamoxifen, proton pump inhibitors, and with smoking. Although both drugs cross the placenta, they don’t have any notable effects on the fetus.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine enter the cell and accumulate in the lysosomes along a pH gradient. Within the lysosome, they increase the pH, thereby stabilizing lysosomes and inhibiting eosinophil and neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytic activity. They also inhibit complement-mediated hemolysis, reduce acute phase reactants, and prevent MHC class II–mediated auto antigen presentation. Additionally, they decrease cell-mediated immunity by decreasing the production of interleukin-1 and plasma cell synthesis. Hydroxychloroquine can also accumulate in endosomes and inhibit toll-like receptor signaling, thereby reducing the production of proinflammatory cytokines.

One of the ways SARS-CoV-2 enters cells is by up-regulating and binding to ACE2. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine reduce glycosylation of ACE2 and thus inhibit viral entry. Additionally, by increasing the endosomal pH, they potentially inactivate enzymes that viruses require for replication. Their lifesaving benefits, however, are thought to involve blocking the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6 and suppressing the cytokine storm thought to induce acute respiratory distress syndrome. Interestingly, chloroquine has also been shown to allow zinc ions into the cell, and zinc is a potent inhibitor of coronavirus RNA polymerase.

Side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine include GI upset, retinal toxicity with long-term use, hypoglycemia, cardiomyopathy, QT prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias, and renal and liver toxicity. Adverse effects have been observed with long-term daily doses of more than 3.5 mg/kg of chloroquine or more than 6.5 mg/kg of hydroxychloroquine. Cutaneous effects include pruritus, morbilliform rashes (in an estimated 10% of those treated) and psoriasis flares, and blue-black hyperpigmentation (in about 25%) of the shins, face, oral palate, and nails.

Initial in vitro studies first showed evidence of the ability of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral activity. In February 2020, the first clinical results of 100 patients treated with chloroquine were reported in a news briefing by the Chinese government. On March 20, the first clinical trial was published offering guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination therapy – albeit with many limitations and reported biases in the study. Despite the poorly designed studies and inconclusive evidence, on March 28, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization that allows providers to request a supply of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are unable to join a clinical trial.

On April 2, the first clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 began at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. The ORCHID trial (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Among In-patients With Symptomatic Disease), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This blinded, placebo-controlled study is evaluating hydroxychloroquine treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in hopes of treating the severe complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants are randomly assigned to receive 400 mg hydroxychloroquine twice daily as a loading dose and then 200 mg twice daily thereafter on days 2-5. As of this writing, this study is currently underway and outcomes are expected in the upcoming weeks.

There is now a shortage of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in patients who have severe dermatologic and rheumatologic diseases, which include some who been in remission for years because of these medications and are in grave danger of recurrence. During this crisis, we desperately need well-controlled, randomized studies to test the efficacy and prolonged safety profile of these drugs in COVID-19 patients, as well as appropriate funding to source these medications for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients in need.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

Sources

Liu J et al. Cell Discov. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41421-020-0156-0.

Vincent MJ et al. Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69.

Gautret P et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949.

Devaux CA et al. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

Aronson J et al. COVID-19 trials registered up to 8 March 2020 – an analysis of 382 studies. 2020. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19/covid-19-registered-trials-and-analysis/

Savarino A et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 Nov;3(11):722-7.

Yazdany J, Kim AHJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.7326/M20-1334.

Xue J et al. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 1;9(10):e109180.

te Velthuis AJ et al. PLoS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the spread of COVID-19, is overwhelming for many people. Health care workers in the United States and around the world are leading the battle on the front lines of the pandemic. Thus, they experience a higher level of stress, fear, and anxiety during this crisis.

Over the course of weeks, hospitalists have reviewed articles, attended webinars, and discussed institutional strategies to respond to COVID-19. They follow the most up-to-date clinical information about the approach to patient care, conserving personal protective equipment (PPE), and guidance on how to talk to patients and families during crisis situations. The safety of hospitalists has been underscored with persistent advocacy from multiple organizations, for PPE, access to testing supplies, and decreasing any unnecessary exposure.

While it is agreed that the safety and well-being of hospital medicine teams is crucial to our society’s victory over COVID-19, very little has been discussed with regards to the “hospitalist” well-being and wellness during this pandemic.

The well-being of providers is essential to the success of a health care system. Many hospitalists already experience moral injury and showed evidence of provider burnout before COVID-19. With the onset of the pandemic, this will only get worse and burnout will accelerate if nothing is done to stop it. We cannot wait for the dust to settle to help our colleagues, we must act now.

Many providers have expressed similar pandemic fears, including, uncertainty about screening and testing capability, fear of the PPE shortage, fear of being exposed and underprepared, and fear of bringing the virus home and making family members sick. This list is not exclusive, and there are so many other factors that providers are internally processing, all while continuing their commitment to patient care and safety.

Practicing medicine comes with the heaviest of responsibilities, including the defense of the health of humanity. Therefore, it is easy to understand that, while providers are on the battlefield of this pandemic as they defend the health of humanity, they are not thinking of their own wellness or well-being. Moral injury describes the mental, emotional, and spiritual distress people feel after “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” This is already happening, with many hospitals in various cities running out of ventilators, lacking basic supplies for provider safety and leaving providers in survival mode on the front lines without their “suits of armor.” However, many providers will never recognize moral injury or burnout because they are focused on saving as many lives as possible with very limited resources.

While many websites can aid patient and community members on wellness during COVID-19, there is no specific forum or outlet for providers. We must give all hospital medicine team members a multimedia platform to address the fear, anxiety, and uncertainty of COVID-19. We must also provide them with techniques for resilience, coping strategies, and develop a network of support as the situation evolves, in real time.

We must remind hospitalists, “You may be scared, you may feel anxious, and that is okay. It is normal to have these feelings and it is healthy to acknowledge them. Fear serves as an important role in keeping us safe, but if left unchecked it can be horrifying and crippling. However, to conquer it we must face our fears together, with strategy, knowledge, and advocacy. This is the way to rebuild the current health care climate with confidence and trust.”

Although the world may seem foreign and dangerous, it is in adversity that we will find our strength as a hospital medicine community. We go to work every day because that is what we do. Your courage to come to work every day, in spite of any danger that it may present to you, is an inspiration to the world. The battle is not lost, and as individuals and as a community we must build resilience, inspire hope, and empower each other. We are stronger together than we are alone. As hospitalists around the country, and throughout the world, we must agree to uphold the moral integrity of medicine without sacrificing ourselves.
 

Dr. Williams is the vice-president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as the vice-president of the Medical Executive Committee.

Resource

Dean, Wendy; Talbot, Simon; and Dean, Austin. Reframing clinician distress: Moral injury not burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sept;36(9):400-2.

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the spread of COVID-19, is overwhelming for many people. Health care workers in the United States and around the world are leading the battle on the front lines of the pandemic. Thus, they experience a higher level of stress, fear, and anxiety during this crisis.

Over the course of weeks, hospitalists have reviewed articles, attended webinars, and discussed institutional strategies to respond to COVID-19. They follow the most up-to-date clinical information about the approach to patient care, conserving personal protective equipment (PPE), and guidance on how to talk to patients and families during crisis situations. The safety of hospitalists has been underscored with persistent advocacy from multiple organizations, for PPE, access to testing supplies, and decreasing any unnecessary exposure.

While it is agreed that the safety and well-being of hospital medicine teams is crucial to our society’s victory over COVID-19, very little has been discussed with regards to the “hospitalist” well-being and wellness during this pandemic.

The well-being of providers is essential to the success of a health care system. Many hospitalists already experience moral injury and showed evidence of provider burnout before COVID-19. With the onset of the pandemic, this will only get worse and burnout will accelerate if nothing is done to stop it. We cannot wait for the dust to settle to help our colleagues, we must act now.

Many providers have expressed similar pandemic fears, including, uncertainty about screening and testing capability, fear of the PPE shortage, fear of being exposed and underprepared, and fear of bringing the virus home and making family members sick. This list is not exclusive, and there are so many other factors that providers are internally processing, all while continuing their commitment to patient care and safety.

Practicing medicine comes with the heaviest of responsibilities, including the defense of the health of humanity. Therefore, it is easy to understand that, while providers are on the battlefield of this pandemic as they defend the health of humanity, they are not thinking of their own wellness or well-being. Moral injury describes the mental, emotional, and spiritual distress people feel after “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” This is already happening, with many hospitals in various cities running out of ventilators, lacking basic supplies for provider safety and leaving providers in survival mode on the front lines without their “suits of armor.” However, many providers will never recognize moral injury or burnout because they are focused on saving as many lives as possible with very limited resources.

While many websites can aid patient and community members on wellness during COVID-19, there is no specific forum or outlet for providers. We must give all hospital medicine team members a multimedia platform to address the fear, anxiety, and uncertainty of COVID-19. We must also provide them with techniques for resilience, coping strategies, and develop a network of support as the situation evolves, in real time.

We must remind hospitalists, “You may be scared, you may feel anxious, and that is okay. It is normal to have these feelings and it is healthy to acknowledge them. Fear serves as an important role in keeping us safe, but if left unchecked it can be horrifying and crippling. However, to conquer it we must face our fears together, with strategy, knowledge, and advocacy. This is the way to rebuild the current health care climate with confidence and trust.”

Although the world may seem foreign and dangerous, it is in adversity that we will find our strength as a hospital medicine community. We go to work every day because that is what we do. Your courage to come to work every day, in spite of any danger that it may present to you, is an inspiration to the world. The battle is not lost, and as individuals and as a community we must build resilience, inspire hope, and empower each other. We are stronger together than we are alone. As hospitalists around the country, and throughout the world, we must agree to uphold the moral integrity of medicine without sacrificing ourselves.
 

Dr. Williams is the vice-president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as the vice-president of the Medical Executive Committee.

Resource

Dean, Wendy; Talbot, Simon; and Dean, Austin. Reframing clinician distress: Moral injury not burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sept;36(9):400-2.

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the spread of COVID-19, is overwhelming for many people. Health care workers in the United States and around the world are leading the battle on the front lines of the pandemic. Thus, they experience a higher level of stress, fear, and anxiety during this crisis.

Over the course of weeks, hospitalists have reviewed articles, attended webinars, and discussed institutional strategies to respond to COVID-19. They follow the most up-to-date clinical information about the approach to patient care, conserving personal protective equipment (PPE), and guidance on how to talk to patients and families during crisis situations. The safety of hospitalists has been underscored with persistent advocacy from multiple organizations, for PPE, access to testing supplies, and decreasing any unnecessary exposure.

While it is agreed that the safety and well-being of hospital medicine teams is crucial to our society’s victory over COVID-19, very little has been discussed with regards to the “hospitalist” well-being and wellness during this pandemic.

The well-being of providers is essential to the success of a health care system. Many hospitalists already experience moral injury and showed evidence of provider burnout before COVID-19. With the onset of the pandemic, this will only get worse and burnout will accelerate if nothing is done to stop it. We cannot wait for the dust to settle to help our colleagues, we must act now.

Many providers have expressed similar pandemic fears, including, uncertainty about screening and testing capability, fear of the PPE shortage, fear of being exposed and underprepared, and fear of bringing the virus home and making family members sick. This list is not exclusive, and there are so many other factors that providers are internally processing, all while continuing their commitment to patient care and safety.

Practicing medicine comes with the heaviest of responsibilities, including the defense of the health of humanity. Therefore, it is easy to understand that, while providers are on the battlefield of this pandemic as they defend the health of humanity, they are not thinking of their own wellness or well-being. Moral injury describes the mental, emotional, and spiritual distress people feel after “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” This is already happening, with many hospitals in various cities running out of ventilators, lacking basic supplies for provider safety and leaving providers in survival mode on the front lines without their “suits of armor.” However, many providers will never recognize moral injury or burnout because they are focused on saving as many lives as possible with very limited resources.

While many websites can aid patient and community members on wellness during COVID-19, there is no specific forum or outlet for providers. We must give all hospital medicine team members a multimedia platform to address the fear, anxiety, and uncertainty of COVID-19. We must also provide them with techniques for resilience, coping strategies, and develop a network of support as the situation evolves, in real time.

We must remind hospitalists, “You may be scared, you may feel anxious, and that is okay. It is normal to have these feelings and it is healthy to acknowledge them. Fear serves as an important role in keeping us safe, but if left unchecked it can be horrifying and crippling. However, to conquer it we must face our fears together, with strategy, knowledge, and advocacy. This is the way to rebuild the current health care climate with confidence and trust.”

Although the world may seem foreign and dangerous, it is in adversity that we will find our strength as a hospital medicine community. We go to work every day because that is what we do. Your courage to come to work every day, in spite of any danger that it may present to you, is an inspiration to the world. The battle is not lost, and as individuals and as a community we must build resilience, inspire hope, and empower each other. We are stronger together than we are alone. As hospitalists around the country, and throughout the world, we must agree to uphold the moral integrity of medicine without sacrificing ourselves.
 

Dr. Williams is the vice-president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as the vice-president of the Medical Executive Committee.

Resource

Dean, Wendy; Talbot, Simon; and Dean, Austin. Reframing clinician distress: Moral injury not burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sept;36(9):400-2.

The SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus has dramatically altered specialty practice across the board, including the practice of infertility treatment. Reproductive medicine societies recommend suspending new infertility treatment cycles during this time. Women and couples who have already invested time and money in their treatment may be understandably frustrated and worried about the impact of this enforced – and indefinite – delay on their chances of conceiving. This puts the physician, who can’t even guarantee when treatment can resume, in the difficult position of trying to balance the patient’s needs with expert recommendations and government mandates.

Infertility Care During COVID-19

European and American reproductive medicine societies have both offered guidelines regarding infertility care during the pandemic. Both recommend shifting to the use of telehealth rather than in-person visits when possible for initial consultations and follow-up discussions.

With respect to infertility treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) advises the following:

• Suspend initiation of new treatment cycles, including ovulation induction; intrauterine insemination; and in vitro fertilization, including retrievals and frozen embryo transfers, and suspend nonurgent gamete cryopreservation.
• Strongly consider cancellation of all embryo transfers, whether fresh or frozen.
• Continue to care for patients who are currently “in cycle” or who require urgent stimulation and cryopreservation.
• Suspend elective surgeries and nonurgent diagnostic procedures.

In most countries, including the United States, all healthcare providers have been asked to put elective and nonurgent medical interventions on hold to ensure that personal protective equipment and other resources are available for the management of patients with COVID-19.

Infertility is a disease and, as such, not all infertility care should be considered elective. Still, for most patients, the overall chances of conceiving will not be compromised by a short delay (1-3 months) in treatment. A longer wait could have more impact on older patients or those who already have reduced ovarian reserve, but these are not indications for urgent fertility treatment.

There are clearly some cases in which infertility treatment cannot be delayed: for example, fertility preservation (oocyte or embryo vitrification) for patients who need to undergo immediate gonadotoxic oncology treatment. These patients need to be able to freeze oocytes/embryos so that later on, they have the option of having a family.

Another situation that could require new infertility treatment is a woman who needs urgent surgery for a condition such as severe symptomatic endometriosis causing ureteral or bowel stenosis/obstruction. Because the surgery itself can compromise fertility, the patient may elect to undergo oocyte embryo cryopreservation or ovarian tissue cryopreservation before the surgical procedure.
 

Pregnancy and COVID-19

As a precautionary measure during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is recommended that planned pregnancy be avoided. The available data on the risks presented by planning a pregnancy during the COVID pandemic are reassuring but limited.

Pregnancy itself has not been shown to alter the course of COVID-19, and most affected pregnant women will experience only mild or moderate flulike symptoms. Patients with cardiovascular or metabolic comorbidities or those requiring immunosuppressants are expected to be at increased risk for more severe forms of the infection. Currently, no strong evidence suggests a higher risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, or adverse neonatal outcomes with maternal COVID-19 infection.

A report based on 38 cases found no evidence for vertical transmission from mother to fetus, and all neonatal specimens (placental tissue) tested negative for the virus. Moreover, no maternal deaths were reported among these 38 infected women. Another study of 11 infected pregnant women likewise found no increased risk for perinatal morbidity or mortality.

On the other hand, a recent article on the perinatal outcomes of 33 neonates born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 reported three cases of neonatal COVID-19 as a result of possible vertical transmission. In two cases, symptoms were mild and initial positive coronavirus test results turned negative within a few days. The third case – a pregnancy delivered by emergency cesarean section at 31 weeks for fetal distress – was complicated by bacterial sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and coagulopathy, but once again, the initially positive coronavirus test was negative by day 7.

No neonatal deaths were reported in these 33 cases. The authors could not rule out the possibility of vertical transmission in the three COVID-positive newborns because strict infection control measures were implemented during the care of the patients.
 

Counseling Patients About Suspending Infertility Treatments

Counseling women is the key to acceptance of the need to suspend or postpone infertility treatments during the pandemic. In addition to the economic hardships that some patients may face as a consequence of the pandemic, an obvious source of frustration stems from not knowing how long delays in treatment might be necessary. A discussion with patients or couples may reassure them that delaying conception is the safest route. For some women, other treatment options might be offered, such as the use of a donor gamete.

Some patients, even when counseled appropriately, may elect to accept the unknown risks. These patients should be counseled about the benefits of cryopreservation with delayed transfer. This could be a compromise, because their overall chances of pregnancy will not be affected but they will have to wait to become pregnant.

Counseling patients about the true impact of delaying treatment in their individual circumstances, providing them with emotional and (if needed) psychological support is important while they wait for their treatment to start. For now, the vast majority of the patients understand the need for delay, appreciate the opportunity to consult the physician over the phone, and are demonstrating patience as they wait for their treatment to start or resume.
 

Resuming Infertility Care

Recommendations could change as the pandemic continues and more information becomes available about the impact of coronavirus infection during pregnancy and the overall capacity of the healthcare system improves. ASRM acknowledges that “reproductive care professionals, in consultation with their patients, will have to consider reassessing the criteria of what represents urgent and non-urgent care.” If the data remain reassuring and social distancing measures are able to slow down the spread of the disease, the infertility care of those couples who would be most affected by a delay in their treatment could gradually be resumed. On April 14, ASRM updated its recommendations about resuming infertility treatment: “ While it is not yet prudent to resume nonemergency infertility procedures, the Task Force recognizes it is also time to begin to consider strategies and best practices for resuming time-sensitive fertility treatments in the face of COVID-19.”

It is likely that the return to “normal” daily practice will be done in a stepwise fashion. I expect the practices first to open for diagnostic infertility testing, then for the less invasive procedures (frozen embryo transfer, intrauterine insemination) and finally for the more invasive lengthy procedures (stimulation with retrieval and embryo transfer). During the reopening of practice, strict infection control measures will need to be observed.

Dr. Kovacs is the medical director of Kaali Institute IVF Center in Budapest, Hungary. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus has dramatically altered specialty practice across the board, including the practice of infertility treatment. Reproductive medicine societies recommend suspending new infertility treatment cycles during this time. Women and couples who have already invested time and money in their treatment may be understandably frustrated and worried about the impact of this enforced – and indefinite – delay on their chances of conceiving. This puts the physician, who can’t even guarantee when treatment can resume, in the difficult position of trying to balance the patient’s needs with expert recommendations and government mandates.

Infertility Care During COVID-19

European and American reproductive medicine societies have both offered guidelines regarding infertility care during the pandemic. Both recommend shifting to the use of telehealth rather than in-person visits when possible for initial consultations and follow-up discussions.

With respect to infertility treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) advises the following:

• Suspend initiation of new treatment cycles, including ovulation induction; intrauterine insemination; and in vitro fertilization, including retrievals and frozen embryo transfers, and suspend nonurgent gamete cryopreservation.
• Strongly consider cancellation of all embryo transfers, whether fresh or frozen.
• Continue to care for patients who are currently “in cycle” or who require urgent stimulation and cryopreservation.
• Suspend elective surgeries and nonurgent diagnostic procedures.

In most countries, including the United States, all healthcare providers have been asked to put elective and nonurgent medical interventions on hold to ensure that personal protective equipment and other resources are available for the management of patients with COVID-19.

Infertility is a disease and, as such, not all infertility care should be considered elective. Still, for most patients, the overall chances of conceiving will not be compromised by a short delay (1-3 months) in treatment. A longer wait could have more impact on older patients or those who already have reduced ovarian reserve, but these are not indications for urgent fertility treatment.

There are clearly some cases in which infertility treatment cannot be delayed: for example, fertility preservation (oocyte or embryo vitrification) for patients who need to undergo immediate gonadotoxic oncology treatment. These patients need to be able to freeze oocytes/embryos so that later on, they have the option of having a family.

Another situation that could require new infertility treatment is a woman who needs urgent surgery for a condition such as severe symptomatic endometriosis causing ureteral or bowel stenosis/obstruction. Because the surgery itself can compromise fertility, the patient may elect to undergo oocyte embryo cryopreservation or ovarian tissue cryopreservation before the surgical procedure.
 

Pregnancy and COVID-19

As a precautionary measure during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is recommended that planned pregnancy be avoided. The available data on the risks presented by planning a pregnancy during the COVID pandemic are reassuring but limited.

Pregnancy itself has not been shown to alter the course of COVID-19, and most affected pregnant women will experience only mild or moderate flulike symptoms. Patients with cardiovascular or metabolic comorbidities or those requiring immunosuppressants are expected to be at increased risk for more severe forms of the infection. Currently, no strong evidence suggests a higher risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, or adverse neonatal outcomes with maternal COVID-19 infection.

A report based on 38 cases found no evidence for vertical transmission from mother to fetus, and all neonatal specimens (placental tissue) tested negative for the virus. Moreover, no maternal deaths were reported among these 38 infected women. Another study of 11 infected pregnant women likewise found no increased risk for perinatal morbidity or mortality.

On the other hand, a recent article on the perinatal outcomes of 33 neonates born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 reported three cases of neonatal COVID-19 as a result of possible vertical transmission. In two cases, symptoms were mild and initial positive coronavirus test results turned negative within a few days. The third case – a pregnancy delivered by emergency cesarean section at 31 weeks for fetal distress – was complicated by bacterial sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and coagulopathy, but once again, the initially positive coronavirus test was negative by day 7.

No neonatal deaths were reported in these 33 cases. The authors could not rule out the possibility of vertical transmission in the three COVID-positive newborns because strict infection control measures were implemented during the care of the patients.
 

Counseling Patients About Suspending Infertility Treatments

Counseling women is the key to acceptance of the need to suspend or postpone infertility treatments during the pandemic. In addition to the economic hardships that some patients may face as a consequence of the pandemic, an obvious source of frustration stems from not knowing how long delays in treatment might be necessary. A discussion with patients or couples may reassure them that delaying conception is the safest route. For some women, other treatment options might be offered, such as the use of a donor gamete.

Some patients, even when counseled appropriately, may elect to accept the unknown risks. These patients should be counseled about the benefits of cryopreservation with delayed transfer. This could be a compromise, because their overall chances of pregnancy will not be affected but they will have to wait to become pregnant.

Counseling patients about the true impact of delaying treatment in their individual circumstances, providing them with emotional and (if needed) psychological support is important while they wait for their treatment to start. For now, the vast majority of the patients understand the need for delay, appreciate the opportunity to consult the physician over the phone, and are demonstrating patience as they wait for their treatment to start or resume.
 

Resuming Infertility Care

Recommendations could change as the pandemic continues and more information becomes available about the impact of coronavirus infection during pregnancy and the overall capacity of the healthcare system improves. ASRM acknowledges that “reproductive care professionals, in consultation with their patients, will have to consider reassessing the criteria of what represents urgent and non-urgent care.” If the data remain reassuring and social distancing measures are able to slow down the spread of the disease, the infertility care of those couples who would be most affected by a delay in their treatment could gradually be resumed. On April 14, ASRM updated its recommendations about resuming infertility treatment: “ While it is not yet prudent to resume nonemergency infertility procedures, the Task Force recognizes it is also time to begin to consider strategies and best practices for resuming time-sensitive fertility treatments in the face of COVID-19.”

It is likely that the return to “normal” daily practice will be done in a stepwise fashion. I expect the practices first to open for diagnostic infertility testing, then for the less invasive procedures (frozen embryo transfer, intrauterine insemination) and finally for the more invasive lengthy procedures (stimulation with retrieval and embryo transfer). During the reopening of practice, strict infection control measures will need to be observed.

Dr. Kovacs is the medical director of Kaali Institute IVF Center in Budapest, Hungary. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus has dramatically altered specialty practice across the board, including the practice of infertility treatment. Reproductive medicine societies recommend suspending new infertility treatment cycles during this time. Women and couples who have already invested time and money in their treatment may be understandably frustrated and worried about the impact of this enforced – and indefinite – delay on their chances of conceiving. This puts the physician, who can’t even guarantee when treatment can resume, in the difficult position of trying to balance the patient’s needs with expert recommendations and government mandates.

Infertility Care During COVID-19

European and American reproductive medicine societies have both offered guidelines regarding infertility care during the pandemic. Both recommend shifting to the use of telehealth rather than in-person visits when possible for initial consultations and follow-up discussions.

With respect to infertility treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) advises the following:

• Suspend initiation of new treatment cycles, including ovulation induction; intrauterine insemination; and in vitro fertilization, including retrievals and frozen embryo transfers, and suspend nonurgent gamete cryopreservation.
• Strongly consider cancellation of all embryo transfers, whether fresh or frozen.
• Continue to care for patients who are currently “in cycle” or who require urgent stimulation and cryopreservation.
• Suspend elective surgeries and nonurgent diagnostic procedures.

In most countries, including the United States, all healthcare providers have been asked to put elective and nonurgent medical interventions on hold to ensure that personal protective equipment and other resources are available for the management of patients with COVID-19.

Infertility is a disease and, as such, not all infertility care should be considered elective. Still, for most patients, the overall chances of conceiving will not be compromised by a short delay (1-3 months) in treatment. A longer wait could have more impact on older patients or those who already have reduced ovarian reserve, but these are not indications for urgent fertility treatment.

There are clearly some cases in which infertility treatment cannot be delayed: for example, fertility preservation (oocyte or embryo vitrification) for patients who need to undergo immediate gonadotoxic oncology treatment. These patients need to be able to freeze oocytes/embryos so that later on, they have the option of having a family.

Another situation that could require new infertility treatment is a woman who needs urgent surgery for a condition such as severe symptomatic endometriosis causing ureteral or bowel stenosis/obstruction. Because the surgery itself can compromise fertility, the patient may elect to undergo oocyte embryo cryopreservation or ovarian tissue cryopreservation before the surgical procedure.
 

Pregnancy and COVID-19

As a precautionary measure during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is recommended that planned pregnancy be avoided. The available data on the risks presented by planning a pregnancy during the COVID pandemic are reassuring but limited.

Pregnancy itself has not been shown to alter the course of COVID-19, and most affected pregnant women will experience only mild or moderate flulike symptoms. Patients with cardiovascular or metabolic comorbidities or those requiring immunosuppressants are expected to be at increased risk for more severe forms of the infection. Currently, no strong evidence suggests a higher risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, or adverse neonatal outcomes with maternal COVID-19 infection.

A report based on 38 cases found no evidence for vertical transmission from mother to fetus, and all neonatal specimens (placental tissue) tested negative for the virus. Moreover, no maternal deaths were reported among these 38 infected women. Another study of 11 infected pregnant women likewise found no increased risk for perinatal morbidity or mortality.

On the other hand, a recent article on the perinatal outcomes of 33 neonates born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 reported three cases of neonatal COVID-19 as a result of possible vertical transmission. In two cases, symptoms were mild and initial positive coronavirus test results turned negative within a few days. The third case – a pregnancy delivered by emergency cesarean section at 31 weeks for fetal distress – was complicated by bacterial sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and coagulopathy, but once again, the initially positive coronavirus test was negative by day 7.

No neonatal deaths were reported in these 33 cases. The authors could not rule out the possibility of vertical transmission in the three COVID-positive newborns because strict infection control measures were implemented during the care of the patients.
 

Counseling Patients About Suspending Infertility Treatments

Counseling women is the key to acceptance of the need to suspend or postpone infertility treatments during the pandemic. In addition to the economic hardships that some patients may face as a consequence of the pandemic, an obvious source of frustration stems from not knowing how long delays in treatment might be necessary. A discussion with patients or couples may reassure them that delaying conception is the safest route. For some women, other treatment options might be offered, such as the use of a donor gamete.

Some patients, even when counseled appropriately, may elect to accept the unknown risks. These patients should be counseled about the benefits of cryopreservation with delayed transfer. This could be a compromise, because their overall chances of pregnancy will not be affected but they will have to wait to become pregnant.

Counseling patients about the true impact of delaying treatment in their individual circumstances, providing them with emotional and (if needed) psychological support is important while they wait for their treatment to start. For now, the vast majority of the patients understand the need for delay, appreciate the opportunity to consult the physician over the phone, and are demonstrating patience as they wait for their treatment to start or resume.
 

Resuming Infertility Care

Recommendations could change as the pandemic continues and more information becomes available about the impact of coronavirus infection during pregnancy and the overall capacity of the healthcare system improves. ASRM acknowledges that “reproductive care professionals, in consultation with their patients, will have to consider reassessing the criteria of what represents urgent and non-urgent care.” If the data remain reassuring and social distancing measures are able to slow down the spread of the disease, the infertility care of those couples who would be most affected by a delay in their treatment could gradually be resumed. On April 14, ASRM updated its recommendations about resuming infertility treatment: “ While it is not yet prudent to resume nonemergency infertility procedures, the Task Force recognizes it is also time to begin to consider strategies and best practices for resuming time-sensitive fertility treatments in the face of COVID-19.”

It is likely that the return to “normal” daily practice will be done in a stepwise fashion. I expect the practices first to open for diagnostic infertility testing, then for the less invasive procedures (frozen embryo transfer, intrauterine insemination) and finally for the more invasive lengthy procedures (stimulation with retrieval and embryo transfer). During the reopening of practice, strict infection control measures will need to be observed.

Dr. Kovacs is the medical director of Kaali Institute IVF Center in Budapest, Hungary. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This month, I would like to touch on a few COVID-19 topics that have received much publicity, with some messages about them having been confusing.

Let’s start with a case:

A 37-year-old woman is seen in clinic for a 5-day history of cough, fever, chest tightness, and onset of dyspnea on the day of her office visit.

An exam reveals her blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, her pulse is 100 beats per minute, her temperature is 38.7° C, her oxygen saturation is 93%, and her respiratory rate is 20 breaths per minute.

Auscultation of the chest revealed bilateral wheezing and rhonchi. A nasopharyngeal swab is sent for COVID-19 and is negative; she also tests negative for influenza.

Her hemoglobin level is 13 g/dL, hematocrit was 39%, platelet count was 155,000 per mcL of blood, and D-dimer level was 8.4 mcg/mL (normal is less than 0.4 mcg/mL.) Her white blood cell count was 6,000 per mcL of blood (neutrophils, 4,900; lymphocytes, 800; basophils, 200). Her chest x-ray showed bilateral lower lobe infiltrates.
 

What do you recommend?

A. Begin azithromycin plus ceftriaxone

B. Begin azithromycin

C. Begin oseltamivir

D. Obtain chest CT

E. Repeat COVID-19 test

With the massive amount of information coming out every day on COVID-19, it is hard to keep up with all of it, and sort out accurate, reviewed studies. We are in a position where we need to take in what we can and assess the best data available.

In the case above, I think choices D or E would make sense. This patient very likely has COVID-19 based on clinical symptoms and lab parameters. The negative COVID-19 test gives us pause, but several studies show that false negative tests are not uncommon.

Long et al. reported on 36 patients who had received both chest CT and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for COVID-19.¹ All were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. The CT scan had a very high sensitivity (35/36) of 97.2%, whereas the rRT-PCR had a lower sensitivity (30/36) of 83%. All six of the patients with a negative COVID-19 test initially were positive on repeat testing (three on the second test, three on the third test).

There are concerns about what the sensitivity of the rRT-PCR tests being run in the United States are. At this point, I think that, when the pretest probability of COVID-19 infection is very high based on local epidemiology and clinical symptoms, a negative COVID rRT-PCR does not eliminate the diagnosis. In many cases, COVID-19 may still be the most likely diagnosis.

Early in the pandemic, the symptoms that were emphasized were fever, cough, and dyspnea. Those were all crucial symptoms for a disease that causes pneumonia. GI symptoms were initially deemphasized. In an early study released from Wuhan, China, only about 5% of COVID-19 patients had nausea or diarrhea.² In a study of 305 patients focused on gastrointestinal symptoms, half of the patients had diarrhea, half had anorexia and 30% had nausea.³ In a small series of nine patients who presented with only GI symptoms, four of these patients never developed fever or pulmonary symptoms.³

On March 14, the French health minister, Olivier Véran, tweeted that “taking anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, cortisone ...) could be an aggravating factor for the infection. If you have a fever, take paracetamol.” This was picked up by many news services, and soon became standard recommendations, despite no data.

There is reason for concern for NSAIDs, as regular NSAID use has been tied to more complications in patients with respiratory tract infections.⁴ I have never been a proponent of regular NSAID use in patients who are infected, because the likelihood of toxicity is elevated in patients who are volume depleted or under physiologic stress. But at this time, there is no evidence on problems with episodic NSAID use in patients with COVID-19.

Another widely disseminated decree was that patients with COVID-19 should not use ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). COVID-19 binds to their target cells through ACE2, which is expressed by epithelial cells of the lung, intestine and kidney. Patients who are treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to have more ACE2 expression.

In a letter to the editor by Fang et al. published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the authors raised the question of whether patients might be better served to be switched from ACE inhibitors and ARBs to calcium-channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension.⁵ A small study by Meng et al. looked at outcomes of patients on these drugs who had COVID-19 infection.⁶ They looked at 417 patients admitted to a hospital in China with COVID-19 infection. A total of 42 patients were on medications for hypertension. Group 1 were patients on ACE inhibitors/ARBs (17 patients) and group 2 were patients on other antihypertensives (25 patients). During hospitalization 12 patients (48%) in group 2 were categorized as having severe disease and 1 patient died. In group 1 (the ACE inhibitor/ARB–treated patients) only four (23%) were categorized as having severe disease, and no patients in this group died.

Vaduganathan et al. published a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine strongly arguing the point that “[u]ntil further data are available, we think that [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] inhibitors should be continued in patients in otherwise stable condition who are at risk for, being evaluated for, or with COVID-19”.⁷ This position is supported by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, and 11 other medical organizations.
 

Take-home messages

• Testing isn’t perfect – if you have strong suspicion for COVID-19 disease, retest.
• GI symptoms appear to be common, and rarely may be the only symptoms initially.
• NSAIDs are always risky in really sick patients, but data specific to COVID-19 is lacking.
• ACE inhibitors/ARBs should not be avoided in patients with COVID-19.

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

References

1. Long C et al. Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? Eur J Radiol. 2020 Mar 25;126:108961.

2. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

3. Tian Y et al. Review article: Gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;00:1–9.

4. Voiriot G et al. Risks related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in community-acquired pneumonia in adult and pediatric patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8:E786.

5. Fang L et al. Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection? Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

6. Meng J et al. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):757-60.

7. Vaduganathan M et al. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2005760.

This month, I would like to touch on a few COVID-19 topics that have received much publicity, with some messages about them having been confusing.

Let’s start with a case:

A 37-year-old woman is seen in clinic for a 5-day history of cough, fever, chest tightness, and onset of dyspnea on the day of her office visit.

An exam reveals her blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, her pulse is 100 beats per minute, her temperature is 38.7° C, her oxygen saturation is 93%, and her respiratory rate is 20 breaths per minute.

Auscultation of the chest revealed bilateral wheezing and rhonchi. A nasopharyngeal swab is sent for COVID-19 and is negative; she also tests negative for influenza.

Her hemoglobin level is 13 g/dL, hematocrit was 39%, platelet count was 155,000 per mcL of blood, and D-dimer level was 8.4 mcg/mL (normal is less than 0.4 mcg/mL.) Her white blood cell count was 6,000 per mcL of blood (neutrophils, 4,900; lymphocytes, 800; basophils, 200). Her chest x-ray showed bilateral lower lobe infiltrates.
 

What do you recommend?

A. Begin azithromycin plus ceftriaxone

B. Begin azithromycin

C. Begin oseltamivir

D. Obtain chest CT

E. Repeat COVID-19 test

With the massive amount of information coming out every day on COVID-19, it is hard to keep up with all of it, and sort out accurate, reviewed studies. We are in a position where we need to take in what we can and assess the best data available.

In the case above, I think choices D or E would make sense. This patient very likely has COVID-19 based on clinical symptoms and lab parameters. The negative COVID-19 test gives us pause, but several studies show that false negative tests are not uncommon.

Long et al. reported on 36 patients who had received both chest CT and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for COVID-19.¹ All were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. The CT scan had a very high sensitivity (35/36) of 97.2%, whereas the rRT-PCR had a lower sensitivity (30/36) of 83%. All six of the patients with a negative COVID-19 test initially were positive on repeat testing (three on the second test, three on the third test).

There are concerns about what the sensitivity of the rRT-PCR tests being run in the United States are. At this point, I think that, when the pretest probability of COVID-19 infection is very high based on local epidemiology and clinical symptoms, a negative COVID rRT-PCR does not eliminate the diagnosis. In many cases, COVID-19 may still be the most likely diagnosis.

Early in the pandemic, the symptoms that were emphasized were fever, cough, and dyspnea. Those were all crucial symptoms for a disease that causes pneumonia. GI symptoms were initially deemphasized. In an early study released from Wuhan, China, only about 5% of COVID-19 patients had nausea or diarrhea.² In a study of 305 patients focused on gastrointestinal symptoms, half of the patients had diarrhea, half had anorexia and 30% had nausea.³ In a small series of nine patients who presented with only GI symptoms, four of these patients never developed fever or pulmonary symptoms.³

On March 14, the French health minister, Olivier Véran, tweeted that “taking anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, cortisone ...) could be an aggravating factor for the infection. If you have a fever, take paracetamol.” This was picked up by many news services, and soon became standard recommendations, despite no data.

There is reason for concern for NSAIDs, as regular NSAID use has been tied to more complications in patients with respiratory tract infections.⁴ I have never been a proponent of regular NSAID use in patients who are infected, because the likelihood of toxicity is elevated in patients who are volume depleted or under physiologic stress. But at this time, there is no evidence on problems with episodic NSAID use in patients with COVID-19.

Another widely disseminated decree was that patients with COVID-19 should not use ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). COVID-19 binds to their target cells through ACE2, which is expressed by epithelial cells of the lung, intestine and kidney. Patients who are treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to have more ACE2 expression.

In a letter to the editor by Fang et al. published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the authors raised the question of whether patients might be better served to be switched from ACE inhibitors and ARBs to calcium-channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension.⁵ A small study by Meng et al. looked at outcomes of patients on these drugs who had COVID-19 infection.⁶ They looked at 417 patients admitted to a hospital in China with COVID-19 infection. A total of 42 patients were on medications for hypertension. Group 1 were patients on ACE inhibitors/ARBs (17 patients) and group 2 were patients on other antihypertensives (25 patients). During hospitalization 12 patients (48%) in group 2 were categorized as having severe disease and 1 patient died. In group 1 (the ACE inhibitor/ARB–treated patients) only four (23%) were categorized as having severe disease, and no patients in this group died.

Vaduganathan et al. published a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine strongly arguing the point that “[u]ntil further data are available, we think that [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] inhibitors should be continued in patients in otherwise stable condition who are at risk for, being evaluated for, or with COVID-19”.⁷ This position is supported by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, and 11 other medical organizations.
 

Take-home messages

• Testing isn’t perfect – if you have strong suspicion for COVID-19 disease, retest.
• GI symptoms appear to be common, and rarely may be the only symptoms initially.
• NSAIDs are always risky in really sick patients, but data specific to COVID-19 is lacking.
• ACE inhibitors/ARBs should not be avoided in patients with COVID-19.

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

References

1. Long C et al. Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? Eur J Radiol. 2020 Mar 25;126:108961.

2. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

3. Tian Y et al. Review article: Gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;00:1–9.

4. Voiriot G et al. Risks related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in community-acquired pneumonia in adult and pediatric patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8:E786.

5. Fang L et al. Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection? Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

6. Meng J et al. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):757-60.

7. Vaduganathan M et al. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2005760.

This month, I would like to touch on a few COVID-19 topics that have received much publicity, with some messages about them having been confusing.

Let’s start with a case:

A 37-year-old woman is seen in clinic for a 5-day history of cough, fever, chest tightness, and onset of dyspnea on the day of her office visit.

An exam reveals her blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, her pulse is 100 beats per minute, her temperature is 38.7° C, her oxygen saturation is 93%, and her respiratory rate is 20 breaths per minute.

Auscultation of the chest revealed bilateral wheezing and rhonchi. A nasopharyngeal swab is sent for COVID-19 and is negative; she also tests negative for influenza.

Her hemoglobin level is 13 g/dL, hematocrit was 39%, platelet count was 155,000 per mcL of blood, and D-dimer level was 8.4 mcg/mL (normal is less than 0.4 mcg/mL.) Her white blood cell count was 6,000 per mcL of blood (neutrophils, 4,900; lymphocytes, 800; basophils, 200). Her chest x-ray showed bilateral lower lobe infiltrates.
 

What do you recommend?

A. Begin azithromycin plus ceftriaxone

B. Begin azithromycin

C. Begin oseltamivir

D. Obtain chest CT

E. Repeat COVID-19 test

With the massive amount of information coming out every day on COVID-19, it is hard to keep up with all of it, and sort out accurate, reviewed studies. We are in a position where we need to take in what we can and assess the best data available.

In the case above, I think choices D or E would make sense. This patient very likely has COVID-19 based on clinical symptoms and lab parameters. The negative COVID-19 test gives us pause, but several studies show that false negative tests are not uncommon.

Long et al. reported on 36 patients who had received both chest CT and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for COVID-19.¹ All were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. The CT scan had a very high sensitivity (35/36) of 97.2%, whereas the rRT-PCR had a lower sensitivity (30/36) of 83%. All six of the patients with a negative COVID-19 test initially were positive on repeat testing (three on the second test, three on the third test).

There are concerns about what the sensitivity of the rRT-PCR tests being run in the United States are. At this point, I think that, when the pretest probability of COVID-19 infection is very high based on local epidemiology and clinical symptoms, a negative COVID rRT-PCR does not eliminate the diagnosis. In many cases, COVID-19 may still be the most likely diagnosis.

Early in the pandemic, the symptoms that were emphasized were fever, cough, and dyspnea. Those were all crucial symptoms for a disease that causes pneumonia. GI symptoms were initially deemphasized. In an early study released from Wuhan, China, only about 5% of COVID-19 patients had nausea or diarrhea.² In a study of 305 patients focused on gastrointestinal symptoms, half of the patients had diarrhea, half had anorexia and 30% had nausea.³ In a small series of nine patients who presented with only GI symptoms, four of these patients never developed fever or pulmonary symptoms.³

On March 14, the French health minister, Olivier Véran, tweeted that “taking anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, cortisone ...) could be an aggravating factor for the infection. If you have a fever, take paracetamol.” This was picked up by many news services, and soon became standard recommendations, despite no data.

There is reason for concern for NSAIDs, as regular NSAID use has been tied to more complications in patients with respiratory tract infections.⁴ I have never been a proponent of regular NSAID use in patients who are infected, because the likelihood of toxicity is elevated in patients who are volume depleted or under physiologic stress. But at this time, there is no evidence on problems with episodic NSAID use in patients with COVID-19.

Another widely disseminated decree was that patients with COVID-19 should not use ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). COVID-19 binds to their target cells through ACE2, which is expressed by epithelial cells of the lung, intestine and kidney. Patients who are treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to have more ACE2 expression.

In a letter to the editor by Fang et al. published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the authors raised the question of whether patients might be better served to be switched from ACE inhibitors and ARBs to calcium-channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension.⁵ A small study by Meng et al. looked at outcomes of patients on these drugs who had COVID-19 infection.⁶ They looked at 417 patients admitted to a hospital in China with COVID-19 infection. A total of 42 patients were on medications for hypertension. Group 1 were patients on ACE inhibitors/ARBs (17 patients) and group 2 were patients on other antihypertensives (25 patients). During hospitalization 12 patients (48%) in group 2 were categorized as having severe disease and 1 patient died. In group 1 (the ACE inhibitor/ARB–treated patients) only four (23%) were categorized as having severe disease, and no patients in this group died.

Vaduganathan et al. published a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine strongly arguing the point that “[u]ntil further data are available, we think that [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] inhibitors should be continued in patients in otherwise stable condition who are at risk for, being evaluated for, or with COVID-19”.⁷ This position is supported by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, and 11 other medical organizations.
 

Take-home messages

• Testing isn’t perfect – if you have strong suspicion for COVID-19 disease, retest.
• GI symptoms appear to be common, and rarely may be the only symptoms initially.
• NSAIDs are always risky in really sick patients, but data specific to COVID-19 is lacking.
• ACE inhibitors/ARBs should not be avoided in patients with COVID-19.

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

References

1. Long C et al. Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? Eur J Radiol. 2020 Mar 25;126:108961.

2. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

3. Tian Y et al. Review article: Gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;00:1–9.

4. Voiriot G et al. Risks related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in community-acquired pneumonia in adult and pediatric patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8:E786.

5. Fang L et al. Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection? Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

6. Meng J et al. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):757-60.

7. Vaduganathan M et al. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2005760.

Coronavirus disease of 2019, more commonly referred to as COVID-19, is caused by a novel coronavirus. At press time in April, its diagnosis had been confirmed in more than 2 million individuals in 185 countries and territories since first isolated in January 2020. Daily updates are provided in terms of the number of new cases, the evolving strategies to mitigate additional spread, testing, potential drug trials, and vaccine development. Risk groups for development of severe disease also have been widely publicized. Limited information has been provided about COVID-19 in children.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Terminology

Endemic. The condition is present at a stable predictable rate in a community. The number observed is what is expected.

Outbreak. The number of cases is greater than what is expected in the area.

Epidemic. An outbreak that spreads over a larger geographical area.

Pandemic. An outbreak that has spread to multiple countries and /or continents.



What we know about coronaviruses: They are host-specific RNA viruses widespread in bats, but found in many other species including humans. Previously, six species caused disease in humans. Four species: 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 usually cause the common cold. Symptoms are generally self-limited and peak 3-4 days after onset. Infection rarely can be manifested as otitis media or a lower respiratory tract disease.

In February 2003, SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus, was identified as the causative agent for an outbreak of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) which began in Guangdong, China. It became a pandemic that occurred between November 2002 and July 2003. More than 8,000 individuals from 26 countries were infected, and there were 774 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases have been reported since April 2004. This virus most often infected adults, and the mortality rate was 10%. No pediatric deaths were reported. The virus was considered to have evolved from a bat CoV with civet cats as an intermediate host.

In September 2012, MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome), another novel coronavirus also manifesting as a severe respiratory illness, was identified in Saudi Arabia. Current data suggests it evolved from a bat CoV using dromedary camels as an intermediate host. To date, more than 2,400 cases have been reported with a case fatality rate of approximately 35% (Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Feb; 26[2]:191-8). Disease in children has been mild. Most cases have been identified in adult males with comorbidities and have been reported from Saudi Arabia (85%). To date, no sustained human-to-human transmission has been documented. However, limited nonsustained human-to-human transmission has occurred in health care settings.


 

Preliminary COVID-19 pediatric data

Multiple case reports and studies with limited numbers of patients have been quickly published, but limited data about children have been available. A large study by Wu et al. was released. Epidemiologic data were available for 72,314 cases (62% confirmed 22% suspected,15% diagnosed based on clinical symptoms). Only 965 (1.3%) cases occurred in persons under 19 years of age. There were no deaths reported in anyone younger than 9 years old. The authors indicated that 889 patients (1%) were asymptomatic, but the exact number of children in that group was not provided.¹

Dong Y et al. reported on the epidemiologic characteristics of 2,135 children under 18 years who resided in or near an epidemic center. Data were obtained retrospectively; 34% (728) of the cases were confirmed and 66% (1,407) were suspected. In summary, 94 (4%) of all patients were asymptomatic, 1,088 (51%) had mild symptoms, and 826 (39%) had moderate symptoms at the time of diagnosis. The remaining 6% of patients (125) had severe/critical disease manifested by dyspnea and hypoxemia. Interestingly, more severe/critical cases were in the suspected group. Could another pathogen be the true etiology? Severity of illness was greatest for infants (11%). As of Feb. 8, 2020, only one child had died; he was 14 years old. This study supports the claim that COVID-19 disease in children is less severe than in adults.²

Data in U.S. children are now available. Between Feb. 12, 2020, and April 2, 2020, there were 149,770 cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 reported to the CDC. Age was documented in 149,082 cases and 2, 572 (1.7%) were in persons younger than 18 years. New York had the highest percentage of reported pediatric cases at 33% from New York City, and 23% from the remainder of New York state; an additional 15% were from New Jersey and the remaining 29% of cases were from other areas. The median age was 11 years. Cases by age were 32% in teens aged 15-17 years; 27% in children aged 10-14 years; 15% in children aged 5-9 years; 11% in children aged 1-4 years; and 15% in children aged less than 1 year.

Exposure history was documented in 184 cases, of which 91% were household /community. Information regarding signs and symptoms were limited but not absent. Based on available data, 73% of children had fever, cough, or shortness of breath. When looked at independently, each of these symptoms occurred less frequently than in adults: 56% of children reported fever, 54% reported cough, and 13% reported shortness of breath, compared with 71%, 80%, and 43% of adults, respectively. Also reported less frequently were myalgia, headache, sore throat, and diarrhea.

Hospitalization status was available for 745 children, with 20% being hospitalized and 2% being admitted to the ICU. Children under 1 year accounted for most of the hospitalizations. Limited information about underlying conditions was provided. Among 345 cases, 23% had at least one underlying medical condition; the most common conditions were chronic lung disease including asthma (50%), cardiovascular disease (31%), and immunosuppression (8%). Three deaths were reported in this cohort of 2,135 children; however, the final cause of death is still under review.³

There are limitations to the data. Many of the answers needed to perform adequate analysis regarding symptoms, their duration and severity, risk factors, etc., were not available. Routine testing is not currently recommended, and current practices may influence the outcomes.

What have we learned? The data suggest that most ill children may not have cough, fever, or shortness of breath; symptoms which parents will be looking for prior to even seeking medical attention. These are the individuals who may likely play a continued role with disease transmission. The need for hospitalization and the severity of illness appears to be lower than in adults but not absent. Strategies to mitigate additional spread such as social distancing, wearing facial masks, and hand washing still are important and should be encouraged.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

References

1. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1239-42.

2. Pediatrics. 2020:145(6): e20200702.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69:422-6.

Coronavirus disease of 2019, more commonly referred to as COVID-19, is caused by a novel coronavirus. At press time in April, its diagnosis had been confirmed in more than 2 million individuals in 185 countries and territories since first isolated in January 2020. Daily updates are provided in terms of the number of new cases, the evolving strategies to mitigate additional spread, testing, potential drug trials, and vaccine development. Risk groups for development of severe disease also have been widely publicized. Limited information has been provided about COVID-19 in children.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Terminology

Endemic. The condition is present at a stable predictable rate in a community. The number observed is what is expected.

Outbreak. The number of cases is greater than what is expected in the area.

Epidemic. An outbreak that spreads over a larger geographical area.

Pandemic. An outbreak that has spread to multiple countries and /or continents.



What we know about coronaviruses: They are host-specific RNA viruses widespread in bats, but found in many other species including humans. Previously, six species caused disease in humans. Four species: 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 usually cause the common cold. Symptoms are generally self-limited and peak 3-4 days after onset. Infection rarely can be manifested as otitis media or a lower respiratory tract disease.

In February 2003, SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus, was identified as the causative agent for an outbreak of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) which began in Guangdong, China. It became a pandemic that occurred between November 2002 and July 2003. More than 8,000 individuals from 26 countries were infected, and there were 774 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases have been reported since April 2004. This virus most often infected adults, and the mortality rate was 10%. No pediatric deaths were reported. The virus was considered to have evolved from a bat CoV with civet cats as an intermediate host.

In September 2012, MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome), another novel coronavirus also manifesting as a severe respiratory illness, was identified in Saudi Arabia. Current data suggests it evolved from a bat CoV using dromedary camels as an intermediate host. To date, more than 2,400 cases have been reported with a case fatality rate of approximately 35% (Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Feb; 26[2]:191-8). Disease in children has been mild. Most cases have been identified in adult males with comorbidities and have been reported from Saudi Arabia (85%). To date, no sustained human-to-human transmission has been documented. However, limited nonsustained human-to-human transmission has occurred in health care settings.


 

Preliminary COVID-19 pediatric data

Multiple case reports and studies with limited numbers of patients have been quickly published, but limited data about children have been available. A large study by Wu et al. was released. Epidemiologic data were available for 72,314 cases (62% confirmed 22% suspected,15% diagnosed based on clinical symptoms). Only 965 (1.3%) cases occurred in persons under 19 years of age. There were no deaths reported in anyone younger than 9 years old. The authors indicated that 889 patients (1%) were asymptomatic, but the exact number of children in that group was not provided.¹

Dong Y et al. reported on the epidemiologic characteristics of 2,135 children under 18 years who resided in or near an epidemic center. Data were obtained retrospectively; 34% (728) of the cases were confirmed and 66% (1,407) were suspected. In summary, 94 (4%) of all patients were asymptomatic, 1,088 (51%) had mild symptoms, and 826 (39%) had moderate symptoms at the time of diagnosis. The remaining 6% of patients (125) had severe/critical disease manifested by dyspnea and hypoxemia. Interestingly, more severe/critical cases were in the suspected group. Could another pathogen be the true etiology? Severity of illness was greatest for infants (11%). As of Feb. 8, 2020, only one child had died; he was 14 years old. This study supports the claim that COVID-19 disease in children is less severe than in adults.²

Data in U.S. children are now available. Between Feb. 12, 2020, and April 2, 2020, there were 149,770 cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 reported to the CDC. Age was documented in 149,082 cases and 2, 572 (1.7%) were in persons younger than 18 years. New York had the highest percentage of reported pediatric cases at 33% from New York City, and 23% from the remainder of New York state; an additional 15% were from New Jersey and the remaining 29% of cases were from other areas. The median age was 11 years. Cases by age were 32% in teens aged 15-17 years; 27% in children aged 10-14 years; 15% in children aged 5-9 years; 11% in children aged 1-4 years; and 15% in children aged less than 1 year.

Exposure history was documented in 184 cases, of which 91% were household /community. Information regarding signs and symptoms were limited but not absent. Based on available data, 73% of children had fever, cough, or shortness of breath. When looked at independently, each of these symptoms occurred less frequently than in adults: 56% of children reported fever, 54% reported cough, and 13% reported shortness of breath, compared with 71%, 80%, and 43% of adults, respectively. Also reported less frequently were myalgia, headache, sore throat, and diarrhea.

Hospitalization status was available for 745 children, with 20% being hospitalized and 2% being admitted to the ICU. Children under 1 year accounted for most of the hospitalizations. Limited information about underlying conditions was provided. Among 345 cases, 23% had at least one underlying medical condition; the most common conditions were chronic lung disease including asthma (50%), cardiovascular disease (31%), and immunosuppression (8%). Three deaths were reported in this cohort of 2,135 children; however, the final cause of death is still under review.³

There are limitations to the data. Many of the answers needed to perform adequate analysis regarding symptoms, their duration and severity, risk factors, etc., were not available. Routine testing is not currently recommended, and current practices may influence the outcomes.

What have we learned? The data suggest that most ill children may not have cough, fever, or shortness of breath; symptoms which parents will be looking for prior to even seeking medical attention. These are the individuals who may likely play a continued role with disease transmission. The need for hospitalization and the severity of illness appears to be lower than in adults but not absent. Strategies to mitigate additional spread such as social distancing, wearing facial masks, and hand washing still are important and should be encouraged.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

References

1. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1239-42.

2. Pediatrics. 2020:145(6): e20200702.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69:422-6.

Coronavirus disease of 2019, more commonly referred to as COVID-19, is caused by a novel coronavirus. At press time in April, its diagnosis had been confirmed in more than 2 million individuals in 185 countries and territories since first isolated in January 2020. Daily updates are provided in terms of the number of new cases, the evolving strategies to mitigate additional spread, testing, potential drug trials, and vaccine development. Risk groups for development of severe disease also have been widely publicized. Limited information has been provided about COVID-19 in children.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Terminology

Endemic. The condition is present at a stable predictable rate in a community. The number observed is what is expected.

Outbreak. The number of cases is greater than what is expected in the area.

Epidemic. An outbreak that spreads over a larger geographical area.

Pandemic. An outbreak that has spread to multiple countries and /or continents.



What we know about coronaviruses: They are host-specific RNA viruses widespread in bats, but found in many other species including humans. Previously, six species caused disease in humans. Four species: 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 usually cause the common cold. Symptoms are generally self-limited and peak 3-4 days after onset. Infection rarely can be manifested as otitis media or a lower respiratory tract disease.

In February 2003, SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus, was identified as the causative agent for an outbreak of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) which began in Guangdong, China. It became a pandemic that occurred between November 2002 and July 2003. More than 8,000 individuals from 26 countries were infected, and there were 774 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases have been reported since April 2004. This virus most often infected adults, and the mortality rate was 10%. No pediatric deaths were reported. The virus was considered to have evolved from a bat CoV with civet cats as an intermediate host.

In September 2012, MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome), another novel coronavirus also manifesting as a severe respiratory illness, was identified in Saudi Arabia. Current data suggests it evolved from a bat CoV using dromedary camels as an intermediate host. To date, more than 2,400 cases have been reported with a case fatality rate of approximately 35% (Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Feb; 26[2]:191-8). Disease in children has been mild. Most cases have been identified in adult males with comorbidities and have been reported from Saudi Arabia (85%). To date, no sustained human-to-human transmission has been documented. However, limited nonsustained human-to-human transmission has occurred in health care settings.


 

Preliminary COVID-19 pediatric data

Multiple case reports and studies with limited numbers of patients have been quickly published, but limited data about children have been available. A large study by Wu et al. was released. Epidemiologic data were available for 72,314 cases (62% confirmed 22% suspected,15% diagnosed based on clinical symptoms). Only 965 (1.3%) cases occurred in persons under 19 years of age. There were no deaths reported in anyone younger than 9 years old. The authors indicated that 889 patients (1%) were asymptomatic, but the exact number of children in that group was not provided.¹

Dong Y et al. reported on the epidemiologic characteristics of 2,135 children under 18 years who resided in or near an epidemic center. Data were obtained retrospectively; 34% (728) of the cases were confirmed and 66% (1,407) were suspected. In summary, 94 (4%) of all patients were asymptomatic, 1,088 (51%) had mild symptoms, and 826 (39%) had moderate symptoms at the time of diagnosis. The remaining 6% of patients (125) had severe/critical disease manifested by dyspnea and hypoxemia. Interestingly, more severe/critical cases were in the suspected group. Could another pathogen be the true etiology? Severity of illness was greatest for infants (11%). As of Feb. 8, 2020, only one child had died; he was 14 years old. This study supports the claim that COVID-19 disease in children is less severe than in adults.²

Data in U.S. children are now available. Between Feb. 12, 2020, and April 2, 2020, there were 149,770 cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 reported to the CDC. Age was documented in 149,082 cases and 2, 572 (1.7%) were in persons younger than 18 years. New York had the highest percentage of reported pediatric cases at 33% from New York City, and 23% from the remainder of New York state; an additional 15% were from New Jersey and the remaining 29% of cases were from other areas. The median age was 11 years. Cases by age were 32% in teens aged 15-17 years; 27% in children aged 10-14 years; 15% in children aged 5-9 years; 11% in children aged 1-4 years; and 15% in children aged less than 1 year.

Exposure history was documented in 184 cases, of which 91% were household /community. Information regarding signs and symptoms were limited but not absent. Based on available data, 73% of children had fever, cough, or shortness of breath. When looked at independently, each of these symptoms occurred less frequently than in adults: 56% of children reported fever, 54% reported cough, and 13% reported shortness of breath, compared with 71%, 80%, and 43% of adults, respectively. Also reported less frequently were myalgia, headache, sore throat, and diarrhea.

Hospitalization status was available for 745 children, with 20% being hospitalized and 2% being admitted to the ICU. Children under 1 year accounted for most of the hospitalizations. Limited information about underlying conditions was provided. Among 345 cases, 23% had at least one underlying medical condition; the most common conditions were chronic lung disease including asthma (50%), cardiovascular disease (31%), and immunosuppression (8%). Three deaths were reported in this cohort of 2,135 children; however, the final cause of death is still under review.³

There are limitations to the data. Many of the answers needed to perform adequate analysis regarding symptoms, their duration and severity, risk factors, etc., were not available. Routine testing is not currently recommended, and current practices may influence the outcomes.

What have we learned? The data suggest that most ill children may not have cough, fever, or shortness of breath; symptoms which parents will be looking for prior to even seeking medical attention. These are the individuals who may likely play a continued role with disease transmission. The need for hospitalization and the severity of illness appears to be lower than in adults but not absent. Strategies to mitigate additional spread such as social distancing, wearing facial masks, and hand washing still are important and should be encouraged.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

References

1. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1239-42.

2. Pediatrics. 2020:145(6): e20200702.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69:422-6.

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.