User login
Responsible use of breast cancer screening
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I examine a study suggesting that annual screening mammography does not reduce the risk of death from breast cancer in women aged 75 years and older. I also highlight a related editorial noting that we should optimize treatment as well as screening for breast cancer.
Regular screening mammography in women aged 50-69 years prevents 21.3 breast cancer deaths among 10,000 women over a 10-year time period (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164[4]:244-55). However, in the published screening trials, few participants were older than 70 years of age.
More than half of women above age 74 receive annual mammograms (Health, United States, 2018. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus18.pdf). And more than a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women aged 70 years or older (CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66[2]:96-114).
Do older women benefit from annual mammography to the same extent as younger women? Is there a point at which benefit ends?
To answer these questions, Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues studied 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare during 2000-2008 (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199).
The researchers examined data on patients aged 70-84 years who had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer. The team emulated a prospective trial by examining deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 years and older who either continued or stopped screening mammography. The researchers conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those aged 75-84 years.
Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but there were no major reductions in breast cancer–related deaths.
Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was reduced for women who continued screening versus those who stopped it by one death per 1,000 women (hazard ratio, 0.78). Among women aged 75-84 years, the 8-year risk reduction was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women (HR, 1.00).
The authors concluded that continuing mammographic screening past age 75 years resulted in no material difference in cancer-specific mortality over an 8-year time period, in comparison with stopping regular screening examinations.
Considering treatment as well as screening
For a variety of reasons (ethical, economic, methodologic), it is unreasonable to expect a randomized, clinical trial examining the value of mammography in older women. An informative alternative would be a well-designed, large-scale, population-based, observational study that takes into consideration potentially confounding variables of the binary strategies of continuing screening versus stopping it.
Although the 8-year risk of breast cancer in older women is not low among screened women – 5.5% in women aged 70-74 years and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years – and mammography remains an effective screening tool, the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality appears to decline as women age.
In the editorial that accompanies the study by Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues, Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, highlighted the role of inadequate, ineffective, inconvenient, or poorly tolerated treatment in older women (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0429).
Dr. Brawley illustrated that focusing too much on screening diverts attention from the major driver of cancer mortality in older women: suboptimal treatment. That certainly has been the case for the dramatic impact of improved lung cancer treatment on mortality, despite a statistically significant impact of screening on lung cancer mortality as well.
As with lung cancer screening, Dr. Brawley describes the goal of defining “personalized screening recommendations” in breast cancer, or screening that is targeted to the highest-risk women and those who stand a high chance of benefiting from treatment if they are diagnosed with breast cancer.
As our population ages and health care expenditures continue to rise, there can be little disagreement that responsible use of cancer diagnostics will be as vital as judicious application of treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I examine a study suggesting that annual screening mammography does not reduce the risk of death from breast cancer in women aged 75 years and older. I also highlight a related editorial noting that we should optimize treatment as well as screening for breast cancer.
Regular screening mammography in women aged 50-69 years prevents 21.3 breast cancer deaths among 10,000 women over a 10-year time period (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164[4]:244-55). However, in the published screening trials, few participants were older than 70 years of age.
More than half of women above age 74 receive annual mammograms (Health, United States, 2018. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus18.pdf). And more than a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women aged 70 years or older (CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66[2]:96-114).
Do older women benefit from annual mammography to the same extent as younger women? Is there a point at which benefit ends?
To answer these questions, Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues studied 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare during 2000-2008 (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199).
The researchers examined data on patients aged 70-84 years who had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer. The team emulated a prospective trial by examining deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 years and older who either continued or stopped screening mammography. The researchers conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those aged 75-84 years.
Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but there were no major reductions in breast cancer–related deaths.
Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was reduced for women who continued screening versus those who stopped it by one death per 1,000 women (hazard ratio, 0.78). Among women aged 75-84 years, the 8-year risk reduction was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women (HR, 1.00).
The authors concluded that continuing mammographic screening past age 75 years resulted in no material difference in cancer-specific mortality over an 8-year time period, in comparison with stopping regular screening examinations.
Considering treatment as well as screening
For a variety of reasons (ethical, economic, methodologic), it is unreasonable to expect a randomized, clinical trial examining the value of mammography in older women. An informative alternative would be a well-designed, large-scale, population-based, observational study that takes into consideration potentially confounding variables of the binary strategies of continuing screening versus stopping it.
Although the 8-year risk of breast cancer in older women is not low among screened women – 5.5% in women aged 70-74 years and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years – and mammography remains an effective screening tool, the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality appears to decline as women age.
In the editorial that accompanies the study by Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues, Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, highlighted the role of inadequate, ineffective, inconvenient, or poorly tolerated treatment in older women (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0429).
Dr. Brawley illustrated that focusing too much on screening diverts attention from the major driver of cancer mortality in older women: suboptimal treatment. That certainly has been the case for the dramatic impact of improved lung cancer treatment on mortality, despite a statistically significant impact of screening on lung cancer mortality as well.
As with lung cancer screening, Dr. Brawley describes the goal of defining “personalized screening recommendations” in breast cancer, or screening that is targeted to the highest-risk women and those who stand a high chance of benefiting from treatment if they are diagnosed with breast cancer.
As our population ages and health care expenditures continue to rise, there can be little disagreement that responsible use of cancer diagnostics will be as vital as judicious application of treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I examine a study suggesting that annual screening mammography does not reduce the risk of death from breast cancer in women aged 75 years and older. I also highlight a related editorial noting that we should optimize treatment as well as screening for breast cancer.
Regular screening mammography in women aged 50-69 years prevents 21.3 breast cancer deaths among 10,000 women over a 10-year time period (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164[4]:244-55). However, in the published screening trials, few participants were older than 70 years of age.
More than half of women above age 74 receive annual mammograms (Health, United States, 2018. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus18.pdf). And more than a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women aged 70 years or older (CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66[2]:96-114).
Do older women benefit from annual mammography to the same extent as younger women? Is there a point at which benefit ends?
To answer these questions, Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues studied 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare during 2000-2008 (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199).
The researchers examined data on patients aged 70-84 years who had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer. The team emulated a prospective trial by examining deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 years and older who either continued or stopped screening mammography. The researchers conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those aged 75-84 years.
Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but there were no major reductions in breast cancer–related deaths.
Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was reduced for women who continued screening versus those who stopped it by one death per 1,000 women (hazard ratio, 0.78). Among women aged 75-84 years, the 8-year risk reduction was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women (HR, 1.00).
The authors concluded that continuing mammographic screening past age 75 years resulted in no material difference in cancer-specific mortality over an 8-year time period, in comparison with stopping regular screening examinations.
Considering treatment as well as screening
For a variety of reasons (ethical, economic, methodologic), it is unreasonable to expect a randomized, clinical trial examining the value of mammography in older women. An informative alternative would be a well-designed, large-scale, population-based, observational study that takes into consideration potentially confounding variables of the binary strategies of continuing screening versus stopping it.
Although the 8-year risk of breast cancer in older women is not low among screened women – 5.5% in women aged 70-74 years and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years – and mammography remains an effective screening tool, the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality appears to decline as women age.
In the editorial that accompanies the study by Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues, Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, highlighted the role of inadequate, ineffective, inconvenient, or poorly tolerated treatment in older women (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0429).
Dr. Brawley illustrated that focusing too much on screening diverts attention from the major driver of cancer mortality in older women: suboptimal treatment. That certainly has been the case for the dramatic impact of improved lung cancer treatment on mortality, despite a statistically significant impact of screening on lung cancer mortality as well.
As with lung cancer screening, Dr. Brawley describes the goal of defining “personalized screening recommendations” in breast cancer, or screening that is targeted to the highest-risk women and those who stand a high chance of benefiting from treatment if they are diagnosed with breast cancer.
As our population ages and health care expenditures continue to rise, there can be little disagreement that responsible use of cancer diagnostics will be as vital as judicious application of treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
April 2020
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis
that resemble whiplash marks. The lesions may be extremely pruritic, and petechiae may be present in the streaks. The trunk is most commonly affected, although lesions can occur on the limbs. Mucosa is not affected. Sun exposure may exacerbate the condition. The dermatitis has been described in all ages and races, and males seem to be more affected than females.
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis typically occurs following the ingestion of raw or undercooked shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes). The mushrooms contain a polysaccharide called lentinan. Ingestion of lentinan activates interleukin-1 (IL-1), resulting in vasodilation and the subsequent dermatitis that can occur within a few hours and up to 5 days post ingestion. Associated gastrointestinal symptoms, fever, and localized swelling have been reported. The rash will resolve spontaneously over a few days to weeks.
Flagellate erythema has been described with bleomycin treatment. Other reported associations include peplomycin (a bleomycin derivative) and docetaxel. The rash may appear following administration of bleomycin by any route and has been shown to be dose independent. Onset occurs anywhere from 1 day to several months after exposure. Over time, the erythema will develop into postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
Dermatomyositis may present with flagellate erythema. Other symptoms include muscle weakness and an inflammatory myopathy. A heliotrope rash on the eyelids, Gottron’s papules on the hands, ragged cuticles with prominent vessels on nail folds may be seen. Blood work may reveal elevated antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti–Mi-2 and anti–Jo-1. Adult-onset Still disease is characterized by fever, arthritis, and salmon-colored patches.
Our patient’s dermatitis resolved spontaneously without treatment.
This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis
that resemble whiplash marks. The lesions may be extremely pruritic, and petechiae may be present in the streaks. The trunk is most commonly affected, although lesions can occur on the limbs. Mucosa is not affected. Sun exposure may exacerbate the condition. The dermatitis has been described in all ages and races, and males seem to be more affected than females.
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis typically occurs following the ingestion of raw or undercooked shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes). The mushrooms contain a polysaccharide called lentinan. Ingestion of lentinan activates interleukin-1 (IL-1), resulting in vasodilation and the subsequent dermatitis that can occur within a few hours and up to 5 days post ingestion. Associated gastrointestinal symptoms, fever, and localized swelling have been reported. The rash will resolve spontaneously over a few days to weeks.
Flagellate erythema has been described with bleomycin treatment. Other reported associations include peplomycin (a bleomycin derivative) and docetaxel. The rash may appear following administration of bleomycin by any route and has been shown to be dose independent. Onset occurs anywhere from 1 day to several months after exposure. Over time, the erythema will develop into postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
Dermatomyositis may present with flagellate erythema. Other symptoms include muscle weakness and an inflammatory myopathy. A heliotrope rash on the eyelids, Gottron’s papules on the hands, ragged cuticles with prominent vessels on nail folds may be seen. Blood work may reveal elevated antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti–Mi-2 and anti–Jo-1. Adult-onset Still disease is characterized by fever, arthritis, and salmon-colored patches.
Our patient’s dermatitis resolved spontaneously without treatment.
This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis
that resemble whiplash marks. The lesions may be extremely pruritic, and petechiae may be present in the streaks. The trunk is most commonly affected, although lesions can occur on the limbs. Mucosa is not affected. Sun exposure may exacerbate the condition. The dermatitis has been described in all ages and races, and males seem to be more affected than females.
Shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis typically occurs following the ingestion of raw or undercooked shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes). The mushrooms contain a polysaccharide called lentinan. Ingestion of lentinan activates interleukin-1 (IL-1), resulting in vasodilation and the subsequent dermatitis that can occur within a few hours and up to 5 days post ingestion. Associated gastrointestinal symptoms, fever, and localized swelling have been reported. The rash will resolve spontaneously over a few days to weeks.
Flagellate erythema has been described with bleomycin treatment. Other reported associations include peplomycin (a bleomycin derivative) and docetaxel. The rash may appear following administration of bleomycin by any route and has been shown to be dose independent. Onset occurs anywhere from 1 day to several months after exposure. Over time, the erythema will develop into postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.
Dermatomyositis may present with flagellate erythema. Other symptoms include muscle weakness and an inflammatory myopathy. A heliotrope rash on the eyelids, Gottron’s papules on the hands, ragged cuticles with prominent vessels on nail folds may be seen. Blood work may reveal elevated antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti–Mi-2 and anti–Jo-1. Adult-onset Still disease is characterized by fever, arthritis, and salmon-colored patches.
Our patient’s dermatitis resolved spontaneously without treatment.
This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Should physicians with OUDs return to practice after treatment?
New review points to importance of sustained recovery
A new article in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences provides an impressive review of research on the complex impairments produced by a wide range of drugs of abuse with a close look at physicians and other health care professionals.1
This review breaks new ground in outlining fitness for duty as an important outcome of the state physician health programs (PHPs). In addition, the review and case report by Alexandria G. Polles, MD, and colleagues are a response to the growing call for the state PHP system of care management to explicitly endorse the use of medication-assisted treatment, specifically the use of buprenorphine and methadone, in the treatment of physicians diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). , because of the elevated rate of substance use disorders among physicians and the safety-sensitive nature of the practice of medicine.
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT)2 for opioid use disorders now dominates the field of treatment in terms of prescribing and also funding to address the opioid overdose crisis. MAT generally includes naltrexone and injectable naltrexone, though those antagonist medications have been used successfully for many decades by PHPs.3 However, to understand the controversy over the use of MAT in the care management of physicians first requires an understanding of state PHPs and how those programs oversee the care of physicians diagnosed with substance use disorders (SUDs), including OUDs.
A national blueprint study of PHPs showed that care begins with a formal diagnostic evaluation.4 Only when a diagnosis of an SUD is established is a physician referred to the attention of a state PHP, and a monitoring contract is signed. PHPs typically do not offer any direct treatment; instead, they manage the care of physician participants in programs in which the PHPs have confidence. Formal addiction treatment most often is 30 days of residential treatment, but many physicians receive intensive outpatient treatment.
After completing an episode of formal treatment, physicians are closely monitored, usually for 5 years, through random drug and alcohol tests, and work site monitors. They are required to engage in intensive recovery support, typically 12-step fellowships but also other alternative recovery support programs. Comorbid conditions, including mental health disorders, are also treated. Managing PHPs have no sanctions for noncompliance; however, importantly, they do offer a safe haven from state medical licensing boards for physicians who are compliant with their recommendations and who remain abstinent from any use of alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or other nonmedical drug use.
The national blueprint study included 16 state PHPs and reviewed single episodes of PHP care for 908 physicians. Complete abstinence from any use of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs was required of all physicians for monitoring periods of at least 5 years. During the extended period, 78% of the physicians did not have a single positive or missed test. Two-thirds of physicians who had one positive or missed test did not have a second. About a dozen publications have resulted from this national study, including an analysis of the roughly one-third of the physicians who were diagnosed with OUD.5
A sample of 702 PHP participants was grouped based on primary drug at intake: alcohol only, any opioid with or without alcohol, and nonopioid drugs. No significant differences were found among these groups in the percentage who completed PHP contracts, failed to complete their contract, or extended their contract and continued to be monitored. Only one physician received methadone to treat chronic pain. None received opioid agonists to treat their opioid use disorder. Opioid antagonist medication (naltrexone) was used for 40 physicians, or 5.7% of the total sample: 2 physicians (1%) from the alcohol-only group; 35 physicians (10.3%) from the any opioid group, and 3 physicians (1.9%) from nonopioid group.
The second fact that needs to be understood is that medical practice in relationship to SUDs is treated by state licensing boards as a safety-sensitive job, analogous to commercial airline pilots who have the Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS),6 which is their own care management program analogous to that of PHPs. A similar program exists for attorneys known as Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).7 Fitness for duty and prevention of harm are major concerns in occupations such as those of physicians, commercial truck drivers, and people working in the nuclear power industry, all of whom have similar safety protections requiring no drug use.
A third fact that deserves special attention is that the unique system of care management for physicians began in the early 1970s. It grew out of employee assistance programs, led then and often now by physicians who are themselves in recovery from SUDs. Many of the successful addiction treatment tools used today come from extensive research of their use in PHPs. Contingency management, 12 steps, caduceus recovery, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and treatment outcomes defined in years are examples in which PHP research helped change treatment and long-term management of SUDs in non-PHP populations.
Dr. Polles and colleagues provide an impressive and comprehensive summary of the issues involved in the new interest in providing the physicians with OUD under PHP care management the option of using buprenorphine or methadone. Such a model within an abstinence-based framework is now being pioneered by a variety of programs, from COAT8 at West Virginia University, Morgantown, to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation.9 In those programs, patients with OUD are offered the option of using buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone as well as the option of using none of those medications in an extended abstinence-based intensive treatment. The authors impressively and fairly summarize the evidence on whether there are cognitive or behavioral deficits associated with the therapeutic use of either buprenorphine or methadone, which might make them unacceptable for physicians. The strongest evidence that these medicines are not necessary in the treatment of OUDs in PHPs is the outstanding outcomes PHPs produce without use of these two medications. If skeptical of the use of medications for OUD treatment in PHP care management, Dr. Polles and colleagues are open to experiments to test the effects of this option just as Florida PHP programs pioneered contracts that included mandatory naltrexone.10 West Virginia University, the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, and other programs should be tested to evaluate just how safe, effective, and attractive such an option would be to physicians.
Many, if not most, SUD treatment programs that use MAT are not associated with the intensive psychological treatment or extended participation in recovery support, such as the 12-step fellowships. MAT is viewed as a harm reduction strategy rather than conceptualized as an abstinence-oriented treatment. For example, there is seldom a “sobriety date” among individuals in MAT, i.e., the last day the individual used any substance of abuse, including alcohol and marijuana. These are, however, central features of PHP care, and they are features of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation’s definition of recovery11 and use of MAT.
Dr. Polles and colleagues call attention to the unique care management of the PHP for all SUDs, not just for OUDs, because the PHPs set the standard for returning physicians to work who have the fitness and cognitive skills to first do no harm. They emphasize the importance of making sustained recovery the expected outcome of SUD treatment. There is a robust literature on the ways in which this distinctive system of care management shows the path forward for addiction treatment generally to regularly achieve 5-year recovery.12 The current controversy over the potential use of buprenorphine and buprenorphine plus naloxone in PHPs is a useful entry into this far larger issue of the potential for PHPs to show the path forward for the addiction treatment field.
Dr. DuPont, the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), is president of the Institute for Behavior and Health Inc., a nonprofit drug-policy research organization in Rockville, Md. He has no disclosures. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University in St. Louis. He is also the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida Gainesville. He has no disclosures.
References
1. Polles AG et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Jan 30;411:116714.
2. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Oct;94(10):2072-86.
3. Srivastava AB and Gold MS. Cerebrum. 2018 Sep-Oct; cer-13-8.
4. DuPont RL et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar 1;36(2):159-71.
5. Merlo LJ et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 May 1;64:47-54.
6. Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS): An Occupational Substance Abuse Treatment Program.
7. Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).
8. Lander LR et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116712-8.
9. Klein AA et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;104:51-63.
10. Merlo LJ et al. J Addict Med. 2012;5(4):279-83.
11. Betty Ford Consensus Panel. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Oct;33(3):221-8.
12. Carr GD et al. “Physician health programs: The U.S. model.” In KJ Brower and MB Riba, (eds.) Physician Mental Health and Well-Being (pp. 265-94). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
New review points to importance of sustained recovery
New review points to importance of sustained recovery
A new article in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences provides an impressive review of research on the complex impairments produced by a wide range of drugs of abuse with a close look at physicians and other health care professionals.1
This review breaks new ground in outlining fitness for duty as an important outcome of the state physician health programs (PHPs). In addition, the review and case report by Alexandria G. Polles, MD, and colleagues are a response to the growing call for the state PHP system of care management to explicitly endorse the use of medication-assisted treatment, specifically the use of buprenorphine and methadone, in the treatment of physicians diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). , because of the elevated rate of substance use disorders among physicians and the safety-sensitive nature of the practice of medicine.
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT)2 for opioid use disorders now dominates the field of treatment in terms of prescribing and also funding to address the opioid overdose crisis. MAT generally includes naltrexone and injectable naltrexone, though those antagonist medications have been used successfully for many decades by PHPs.3 However, to understand the controversy over the use of MAT in the care management of physicians first requires an understanding of state PHPs and how those programs oversee the care of physicians diagnosed with substance use disorders (SUDs), including OUDs.
A national blueprint study of PHPs showed that care begins with a formal diagnostic evaluation.4 Only when a diagnosis of an SUD is established is a physician referred to the attention of a state PHP, and a monitoring contract is signed. PHPs typically do not offer any direct treatment; instead, they manage the care of physician participants in programs in which the PHPs have confidence. Formal addiction treatment most often is 30 days of residential treatment, but many physicians receive intensive outpatient treatment.
After completing an episode of formal treatment, physicians are closely monitored, usually for 5 years, through random drug and alcohol tests, and work site monitors. They are required to engage in intensive recovery support, typically 12-step fellowships but also other alternative recovery support programs. Comorbid conditions, including mental health disorders, are also treated. Managing PHPs have no sanctions for noncompliance; however, importantly, they do offer a safe haven from state medical licensing boards for physicians who are compliant with their recommendations and who remain abstinent from any use of alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or other nonmedical drug use.
The national blueprint study included 16 state PHPs and reviewed single episodes of PHP care for 908 physicians. Complete abstinence from any use of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs was required of all physicians for monitoring periods of at least 5 years. During the extended period, 78% of the physicians did not have a single positive or missed test. Two-thirds of physicians who had one positive or missed test did not have a second. About a dozen publications have resulted from this national study, including an analysis of the roughly one-third of the physicians who were diagnosed with OUD.5
A sample of 702 PHP participants was grouped based on primary drug at intake: alcohol only, any opioid with or without alcohol, and nonopioid drugs. No significant differences were found among these groups in the percentage who completed PHP contracts, failed to complete their contract, or extended their contract and continued to be monitored. Only one physician received methadone to treat chronic pain. None received opioid agonists to treat their opioid use disorder. Opioid antagonist medication (naltrexone) was used for 40 physicians, or 5.7% of the total sample: 2 physicians (1%) from the alcohol-only group; 35 physicians (10.3%) from the any opioid group, and 3 physicians (1.9%) from nonopioid group.
The second fact that needs to be understood is that medical practice in relationship to SUDs is treated by state licensing boards as a safety-sensitive job, analogous to commercial airline pilots who have the Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS),6 which is their own care management program analogous to that of PHPs. A similar program exists for attorneys known as Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).7 Fitness for duty and prevention of harm are major concerns in occupations such as those of physicians, commercial truck drivers, and people working in the nuclear power industry, all of whom have similar safety protections requiring no drug use.
A third fact that deserves special attention is that the unique system of care management for physicians began in the early 1970s. It grew out of employee assistance programs, led then and often now by physicians who are themselves in recovery from SUDs. Many of the successful addiction treatment tools used today come from extensive research of their use in PHPs. Contingency management, 12 steps, caduceus recovery, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and treatment outcomes defined in years are examples in which PHP research helped change treatment and long-term management of SUDs in non-PHP populations.
Dr. Polles and colleagues provide an impressive and comprehensive summary of the issues involved in the new interest in providing the physicians with OUD under PHP care management the option of using buprenorphine or methadone. Such a model within an abstinence-based framework is now being pioneered by a variety of programs, from COAT8 at West Virginia University, Morgantown, to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation.9 In those programs, patients with OUD are offered the option of using buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone as well as the option of using none of those medications in an extended abstinence-based intensive treatment. The authors impressively and fairly summarize the evidence on whether there are cognitive or behavioral deficits associated with the therapeutic use of either buprenorphine or methadone, which might make them unacceptable for physicians. The strongest evidence that these medicines are not necessary in the treatment of OUDs in PHPs is the outstanding outcomes PHPs produce without use of these two medications. If skeptical of the use of medications for OUD treatment in PHP care management, Dr. Polles and colleagues are open to experiments to test the effects of this option just as Florida PHP programs pioneered contracts that included mandatory naltrexone.10 West Virginia University, the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, and other programs should be tested to evaluate just how safe, effective, and attractive such an option would be to physicians.
Many, if not most, SUD treatment programs that use MAT are not associated with the intensive psychological treatment or extended participation in recovery support, such as the 12-step fellowships. MAT is viewed as a harm reduction strategy rather than conceptualized as an abstinence-oriented treatment. For example, there is seldom a “sobriety date” among individuals in MAT, i.e., the last day the individual used any substance of abuse, including alcohol and marijuana. These are, however, central features of PHP care, and they are features of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation’s definition of recovery11 and use of MAT.
Dr. Polles and colleagues call attention to the unique care management of the PHP for all SUDs, not just for OUDs, because the PHPs set the standard for returning physicians to work who have the fitness and cognitive skills to first do no harm. They emphasize the importance of making sustained recovery the expected outcome of SUD treatment. There is a robust literature on the ways in which this distinctive system of care management shows the path forward for addiction treatment generally to regularly achieve 5-year recovery.12 The current controversy over the potential use of buprenorphine and buprenorphine plus naloxone in PHPs is a useful entry into this far larger issue of the potential for PHPs to show the path forward for the addiction treatment field.
Dr. DuPont, the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), is president of the Institute for Behavior and Health Inc., a nonprofit drug-policy research organization in Rockville, Md. He has no disclosures. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University in St. Louis. He is also the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida Gainesville. He has no disclosures.
References
1. Polles AG et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Jan 30;411:116714.
2. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Oct;94(10):2072-86.
3. Srivastava AB and Gold MS. Cerebrum. 2018 Sep-Oct; cer-13-8.
4. DuPont RL et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar 1;36(2):159-71.
5. Merlo LJ et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 May 1;64:47-54.
6. Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS): An Occupational Substance Abuse Treatment Program.
7. Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).
8. Lander LR et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116712-8.
9. Klein AA et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;104:51-63.
10. Merlo LJ et al. J Addict Med. 2012;5(4):279-83.
11. Betty Ford Consensus Panel. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Oct;33(3):221-8.
12. Carr GD et al. “Physician health programs: The U.S. model.” In KJ Brower and MB Riba, (eds.) Physician Mental Health and Well-Being (pp. 265-94). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
A new article in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences provides an impressive review of research on the complex impairments produced by a wide range of drugs of abuse with a close look at physicians and other health care professionals.1
This review breaks new ground in outlining fitness for duty as an important outcome of the state physician health programs (PHPs). In addition, the review and case report by Alexandria G. Polles, MD, and colleagues are a response to the growing call for the state PHP system of care management to explicitly endorse the use of medication-assisted treatment, specifically the use of buprenorphine and methadone, in the treatment of physicians diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). , because of the elevated rate of substance use disorders among physicians and the safety-sensitive nature of the practice of medicine.
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT)2 for opioid use disorders now dominates the field of treatment in terms of prescribing and also funding to address the opioid overdose crisis. MAT generally includes naltrexone and injectable naltrexone, though those antagonist medications have been used successfully for many decades by PHPs.3 However, to understand the controversy over the use of MAT in the care management of physicians first requires an understanding of state PHPs and how those programs oversee the care of physicians diagnosed with substance use disorders (SUDs), including OUDs.
A national blueprint study of PHPs showed that care begins with a formal diagnostic evaluation.4 Only when a diagnosis of an SUD is established is a physician referred to the attention of a state PHP, and a monitoring contract is signed. PHPs typically do not offer any direct treatment; instead, they manage the care of physician participants in programs in which the PHPs have confidence. Formal addiction treatment most often is 30 days of residential treatment, but many physicians receive intensive outpatient treatment.
After completing an episode of formal treatment, physicians are closely monitored, usually for 5 years, through random drug and alcohol tests, and work site monitors. They are required to engage in intensive recovery support, typically 12-step fellowships but also other alternative recovery support programs. Comorbid conditions, including mental health disorders, are also treated. Managing PHPs have no sanctions for noncompliance; however, importantly, they do offer a safe haven from state medical licensing boards for physicians who are compliant with their recommendations and who remain abstinent from any use of alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or other nonmedical drug use.
The national blueprint study included 16 state PHPs and reviewed single episodes of PHP care for 908 physicians. Complete abstinence from any use of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs was required of all physicians for monitoring periods of at least 5 years. During the extended period, 78% of the physicians did not have a single positive or missed test. Two-thirds of physicians who had one positive or missed test did not have a second. About a dozen publications have resulted from this national study, including an analysis of the roughly one-third of the physicians who were diagnosed with OUD.5
A sample of 702 PHP participants was grouped based on primary drug at intake: alcohol only, any opioid with or without alcohol, and nonopioid drugs. No significant differences were found among these groups in the percentage who completed PHP contracts, failed to complete their contract, or extended their contract and continued to be monitored. Only one physician received methadone to treat chronic pain. None received opioid agonists to treat their opioid use disorder. Opioid antagonist medication (naltrexone) was used for 40 physicians, or 5.7% of the total sample: 2 physicians (1%) from the alcohol-only group; 35 physicians (10.3%) from the any opioid group, and 3 physicians (1.9%) from nonopioid group.
The second fact that needs to be understood is that medical practice in relationship to SUDs is treated by state licensing boards as a safety-sensitive job, analogous to commercial airline pilots who have the Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS),6 which is their own care management program analogous to that of PHPs. A similar program exists for attorneys known as Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).7 Fitness for duty and prevention of harm are major concerns in occupations such as those of physicians, commercial truck drivers, and people working in the nuclear power industry, all of whom have similar safety protections requiring no drug use.
A third fact that deserves special attention is that the unique system of care management for physicians began in the early 1970s. It grew out of employee assistance programs, led then and often now by physicians who are themselves in recovery from SUDs. Many of the successful addiction treatment tools used today come from extensive research of their use in PHPs. Contingency management, 12 steps, caduceus recovery, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and treatment outcomes defined in years are examples in which PHP research helped change treatment and long-term management of SUDs in non-PHP populations.
Dr. Polles and colleagues provide an impressive and comprehensive summary of the issues involved in the new interest in providing the physicians with OUD under PHP care management the option of using buprenorphine or methadone. Such a model within an abstinence-based framework is now being pioneered by a variety of programs, from COAT8 at West Virginia University, Morgantown, to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation.9 In those programs, patients with OUD are offered the option of using buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone as well as the option of using none of those medications in an extended abstinence-based intensive treatment. The authors impressively and fairly summarize the evidence on whether there are cognitive or behavioral deficits associated with the therapeutic use of either buprenorphine or methadone, which might make them unacceptable for physicians. The strongest evidence that these medicines are not necessary in the treatment of OUDs in PHPs is the outstanding outcomes PHPs produce without use of these two medications. If skeptical of the use of medications for OUD treatment in PHP care management, Dr. Polles and colleagues are open to experiments to test the effects of this option just as Florida PHP programs pioneered contracts that included mandatory naltrexone.10 West Virginia University, the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, and other programs should be tested to evaluate just how safe, effective, and attractive such an option would be to physicians.
Many, if not most, SUD treatment programs that use MAT are not associated with the intensive psychological treatment or extended participation in recovery support, such as the 12-step fellowships. MAT is viewed as a harm reduction strategy rather than conceptualized as an abstinence-oriented treatment. For example, there is seldom a “sobriety date” among individuals in MAT, i.e., the last day the individual used any substance of abuse, including alcohol and marijuana. These are, however, central features of PHP care, and they are features of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation’s definition of recovery11 and use of MAT.
Dr. Polles and colleagues call attention to the unique care management of the PHP for all SUDs, not just for OUDs, because the PHPs set the standard for returning physicians to work who have the fitness and cognitive skills to first do no harm. They emphasize the importance of making sustained recovery the expected outcome of SUD treatment. There is a robust literature on the ways in which this distinctive system of care management shows the path forward for addiction treatment generally to regularly achieve 5-year recovery.12 The current controversy over the potential use of buprenorphine and buprenorphine plus naloxone in PHPs is a useful entry into this far larger issue of the potential for PHPs to show the path forward for the addiction treatment field.
Dr. DuPont, the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), is president of the Institute for Behavior and Health Inc., a nonprofit drug-policy research organization in Rockville, Md. He has no disclosures. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University in St. Louis. He is also the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida Gainesville. He has no disclosures.
References
1. Polles AG et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Jan 30;411:116714.
2. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Oct;94(10):2072-86.
3. Srivastava AB and Gold MS. Cerebrum. 2018 Sep-Oct; cer-13-8.
4. DuPont RL et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar 1;36(2):159-71.
5. Merlo LJ et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 May 1;64:47-54.
6. Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS): An Occupational Substance Abuse Treatment Program.
7. Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP).
8. Lander LR et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116712-8.
9. Klein AA et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;104:51-63.
10. Merlo LJ et al. J Addict Med. 2012;5(4):279-83.
11. Betty Ford Consensus Panel. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Oct;33(3):221-8.
12. Carr GD et al. “Physician health programs: The U.S. model.” In KJ Brower and MB Riba, (eds.) Physician Mental Health and Well-Being (pp. 265-94). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
COVID-19 guidance for children’s health care providers
We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.
Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication
If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).
Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.
It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”
Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.
School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.
Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities
Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.
Preserve routines and structure
Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.
Find opportunity in the disruption
Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.
Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships
Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.
Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication
If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).
Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.
It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”
Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.
School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.
Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities
Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.
Preserve routines and structure
Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.
Find opportunity in the disruption
Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.
Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships
Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.
Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication
If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).
Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.
It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”
Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.
School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.
Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities
Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.
Preserve routines and structure
Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.
Find opportunity in the disruption
Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.
Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships
Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
Physicians and health systems can reduce fear around COVID-19
A message from a Chief Wellness Officer
We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.
Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.
It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.
First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.
Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.
So, what can physicians do?
- Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
- Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
- Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
- Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
- Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
- Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
- Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
- Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
- Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.
Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A message from a Chief Wellness Officer
We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.
Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.
It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.
First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.
Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.
So, what can physicians do?
- Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
- Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
- Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
- Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
- Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
- Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
- Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
- Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
- Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.
Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A message from a Chief Wellness Officer
We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.
Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.
It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.
First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.
Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.
So, what can physicians do?
- Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
- Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
- Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
- Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
- Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
- Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
- Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
- Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
- Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.
Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CME in the time of COVID-19
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.
On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.
The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.
On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.
As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.
If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.
For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.
For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.
Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.
As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.
If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.
On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.
The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.
On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.
As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.
If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.
For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.
For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.
Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.
As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.
If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.
On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.
The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.
On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.
As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.
If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.
For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.
For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.
Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.
As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.
If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.
During a viral pandemic, anxiety is endemic: The psychiatric aspects of COVID-19
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
Psychiatric patients and pandemics
What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?
In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.
I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.
- On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
- We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
- An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.
- In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
- Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
- We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
- We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
- Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.
- Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
- And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
- Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.
On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.
Take care of your patients and each other.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.
What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?
In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.
I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.
- On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
- We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
- An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.
- In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
- Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
- We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
- We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
- Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.
- Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
- And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
- Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.
On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.
Take care of your patients and each other.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.
What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?
In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.
I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.
- On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
- We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
- An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.
- In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
- Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
- We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
- We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
- Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.
- Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
- And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
- Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.
On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.
Take care of your patients and each other.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.
COVID-19 in children, pregnant women: What do we know?
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Real-world data are a wake-up call
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.