User login
SARS-CoV-2 present significantly longer in stool than in respiratory, serum samples
A study from China showed that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 lasts significantly longer in stool samples from COVID-19 patients than in respiratory and serum samples.
However, the virus also persists longer with higher loads and later peaks in the respiratory tissue of patients with severe disease than in those with mild disease, according to an analysis of 96 consecutively admitted patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The retrospective study cohort data were collected from Jan. 19 to March 20 at a designated hospital for patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang province. Among the patients, 22 had mild disease, and 74 had severe disease, according to the researchers.
Infection was confirmed in all patients by testing sputum and saliva samples. Viral RNA was detected in the stool of 59% of the patients and in the serum of 41% of patients. Only one of the patients had a positive urine sample. The median duration of virus in stool (22 days) was significantly longer than in respiratory (18 days; P = .002) and serum samples (16 days; P < .001).
In addition, the median duration of virus in the respiratory samples of patients with severe disease (21 days) was significantly longer than in patients with mild disease (14 days; P = .04).
“In the mild group, the viral loads peaked in respiratory samples in the second week from disease onset, whereas viral load continued to be high during the third week in the severe group,” the authors stated.
Virus duration was also longer in patients older than 60 years and in men.
The longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in stool samples highlights the need to strengthen the management of stool samples in the prevention and control of the epidemic, especially for patients in the later stages of the disease, the authors advised.
“Compared with patients with mild disease, those with severe disease showed longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples, higher viral load, and a later shedding peak. These findings suggest that reducing viral loads through clinical means and strengthening management during each stage of severe disease should help to prevent the spread of the virus,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the China National Mega-Projects for Infectious Diseases and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zheng S et al. BMJ. 2020;369:m1443.
A study from China showed that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 lasts significantly longer in stool samples from COVID-19 patients than in respiratory and serum samples.
However, the virus also persists longer with higher loads and later peaks in the respiratory tissue of patients with severe disease than in those with mild disease, according to an analysis of 96 consecutively admitted patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The retrospective study cohort data were collected from Jan. 19 to March 20 at a designated hospital for patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang province. Among the patients, 22 had mild disease, and 74 had severe disease, according to the researchers.
Infection was confirmed in all patients by testing sputum and saliva samples. Viral RNA was detected in the stool of 59% of the patients and in the serum of 41% of patients. Only one of the patients had a positive urine sample. The median duration of virus in stool (22 days) was significantly longer than in respiratory (18 days; P = .002) and serum samples (16 days; P < .001).
In addition, the median duration of virus in the respiratory samples of patients with severe disease (21 days) was significantly longer than in patients with mild disease (14 days; P = .04).
“In the mild group, the viral loads peaked in respiratory samples in the second week from disease onset, whereas viral load continued to be high during the third week in the severe group,” the authors stated.
Virus duration was also longer in patients older than 60 years and in men.
The longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in stool samples highlights the need to strengthen the management of stool samples in the prevention and control of the epidemic, especially for patients in the later stages of the disease, the authors advised.
“Compared with patients with mild disease, those with severe disease showed longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples, higher viral load, and a later shedding peak. These findings suggest that reducing viral loads through clinical means and strengthening management during each stage of severe disease should help to prevent the spread of the virus,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the China National Mega-Projects for Infectious Diseases and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zheng S et al. BMJ. 2020;369:m1443.
A study from China showed that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 lasts significantly longer in stool samples from COVID-19 patients than in respiratory and serum samples.
However, the virus also persists longer with higher loads and later peaks in the respiratory tissue of patients with severe disease than in those with mild disease, according to an analysis of 96 consecutively admitted patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The retrospective study cohort data were collected from Jan. 19 to March 20 at a designated hospital for patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang province. Among the patients, 22 had mild disease, and 74 had severe disease, according to the researchers.
Infection was confirmed in all patients by testing sputum and saliva samples. Viral RNA was detected in the stool of 59% of the patients and in the serum of 41% of patients. Only one of the patients had a positive urine sample. The median duration of virus in stool (22 days) was significantly longer than in respiratory (18 days; P = .002) and serum samples (16 days; P < .001).
In addition, the median duration of virus in the respiratory samples of patients with severe disease (21 days) was significantly longer than in patients with mild disease (14 days; P = .04).
“In the mild group, the viral loads peaked in respiratory samples in the second week from disease onset, whereas viral load continued to be high during the third week in the severe group,” the authors stated.
Virus duration was also longer in patients older than 60 years and in men.
The longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in stool samples highlights the need to strengthen the management of stool samples in the prevention and control of the epidemic, especially for patients in the later stages of the disease, the authors advised.
“Compared with patients with mild disease, those with severe disease showed longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples, higher viral load, and a later shedding peak. These findings suggest that reducing viral loads through clinical means and strengthening management during each stage of severe disease should help to prevent the spread of the virus,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the China National Mega-Projects for Infectious Diseases and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zheng S et al. BMJ. 2020;369:m1443.
FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
COVID-19 linked to large vessel stroke in young adults
In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.
The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.
“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.
The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.
Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.
Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.
“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.
As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.
The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.
One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”
Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.
The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.
“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.
The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.
Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.
Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.
“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.
As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.
The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.
One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”
Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.
The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.
“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.
The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.
Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.
Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.
“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.
As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.
The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.
One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.
Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”
Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA reiterates hydroxychloroquine limitations for COVID-19
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
FROM THE FDA
COVID-19: Experts call for ‘urgent’ global action to prevent suicide
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What will pediatrics look like in 2022?
In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.
So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.
We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?
Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.
Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.
Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.
How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.
None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.
So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.
We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?
Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.
Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.
Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.
How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.
None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.
So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.
We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?
Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.
Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.
Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.
How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.
None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Prioritizing ambulatory gynecology care during COVID-19: The latest guidance
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
European COVID-19 insights: Try helmet CPAP
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Are patients with epilepsy at increased risk of COVID-19 infection?
Chronic conditions such as lung disease, diabetes, and heart disease frequently receive attention for increasing the risk of complications for people who contract the coronavirus. Meanwhile, many members of the epilepsy community continue to wonder how the virus affects them. To address these concerns, the Epilepsy Foundation has released information that answers many common questions that people with epilepsy have about how COVID-19 can impact their health.
Perhaps the most pressing of these questions is: Does epilepsy increase the risk or severity of the coronavirus?
“The most common thing we’re hearing from patients in my practice is their proactive concern for being at increased risk for getting the coronavirus,” confirmed Selim Benbadis, MD, division director, epilepsy, EEG, and sleep medicine at the University of South Florida in Tampa. “Epilepsy patients are not at increased risk for complications from the coronavirus because epilepsy does not affect the immune system.”
In other words, people who have epilepsy face the same health challenges as people who do not have the condition and are otherwise healthy. For this reason, people who have epilepsy should exercise the same habits and preventative measures that healthy people would typically take, such as social distancing; avoiding contact with sick people; washing hands regularly; disinfecting surfaces regularly; and avoiding touching hands, eyes, nose and mouth.
However, as Dr. Benbadis explained, the high fever associated with coronavirus can trigger seizures. The increased risk is another reason people who have epilepsy should do their best to avoid getting sick.
Seizure medications do not increase COVID-19 risk but other conditions can
Similarly, epilepsy medications do not increase the risk of contracting the disease.
“The medications patients take to treat their epilepsy do not affect their immune system,” said Andrew Wilner, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. There are a few exceptions – such as adrenocorticotropic hormone and everolimus – but doctors rarely use these drugs to treat epilepsy.
However, there are some situations and conditions that may pose a risk for people who contact the coronavirus. For instance, people who have problems swallowing their food and tend to suck food down their windpipes are more likely to develop pneumonia. Also, much like the general population, having diabetes, heart disease, or lung problems increase the chances of developing complications from the virus.
The best ways to avoid additional risks in epilepsy
Because of the pandemic, people who have epilepsy may have found that many of their doctors’ appointments have been canceled. Many clinics and medical practices have done this in order minimize exposing people who have acute illnesses to the virus. By focusing more on patients with acute conditions, doctors and nurses can better tend to patients with acute problems. As a result, practices have shifted to providing patient care using telemedicine as much as possible.
“Telemedicine services have surged, and I’ve been saying for years that telemedicine was going to grow,” Dr. Benbadis said. “It’s more convenient, and I believe that we’re going to see increased use of telemedicine long after the coronavirus pandemic is over.”
Aside from communicating with their doctors, the Epilepsy Foundation and Dr. Wilner stress that the best way for people who have epilepsy to stay healthy is by taking their medications on a regular basis exactly as prescribed.
“Taking mediation correctly and regularly is the best strategy for epilepsy patients to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations,” Dr. Wilner said. “If they have breakthrough seizures and get sent to the emergency room, then they risk being exposed to the virus in the ER.”
Also, because ERs are more crowded than usual, the Epilepsy Foundation encourages people who suspect they have the coronavirus to call their doctor’s office first. The goal is to try to make sure that people who have severe or life-threatening symptoms have access to treatment in the ER.
As with the general population, the first thing that epilepsy patients who suspect they have the coronavirus should do is call his or her doctor’s office. The health care professional taking the call will ask the patient a series of questions to determine whether the patient has COVID-19 or another condition or needs to seek emergency medical attention.
Fever, cough, and trouble breathing fall among the most commonly reported symptoms of the coronavirus. In many cases, health care providers recommend that people with mild versions of these symptoms stay at home.
Helpful tips
The Epilepsy Foundation offers tips on signs to look for when trying to figure out when a seizure requires an ER visit. These are:
- Seizures in which awareness is lost for more than 5 minutes and no reversal medications are available.
- Seizures with an unusual pattern or duration.
- Seizures that cannot be treated safely at home or are not responding to rescue medication even after the medication has had enough time to work.
- Seizures that occur after a severe blow to the head.
Additionally, while COVID-19 can cause death and sudden death in patients, the virus does not cause sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Because SUDEP is extremely rare, Dr. Benbadis said that there is no information to suggest that contracting the coronavirus will increase the risk,
Finally, no shortages of seizures medications have been reported as a result of COVID-19. However, there were shortages of generic levetiracetam immediate-release and levetiracetam extended-release medications prior to and during COVID-19. Experts expect the shortage to continue.
Overall, people who have epilepsy should be able to stay healthy – provided they exercise healthy and preventative habits.
“The majority of epilepsy patients should be reassured that if they continue their usual care, take their meds as directed, get adequate sleep, nutritious diet, they’re not at any increased risk compared to the general population,” said Dr. Wilner.
Dr. Benbadis reported the following disclosures: consultant for Bioserenity (DigiTrace), Brain Sentinel, Cavion, Ceribell, Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Neuropace, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion; speakers bureau for Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Sunovion; Florida Medical Director of Stratus/Alliance; Member: Epilepsy Study Consortium; grant support from Cavion, LivaNova, Greenwich, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion, Takeda, UCB, Xenon; royalties as an author or editor for Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, UpToDate; editorial board for the Epilepsy.com (Epilepsy Foundation) controversy section, Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, Epileptic Disorders, Epilepsy and Behavior, and Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. Dr. Wilner reports Medical Advisory Board of Accordant Health Services, Greensboro, S.C., and book royalties: “The Locum Life: A Physician’s Guide to Locum Tenens,” Lulu Press.
Chronic conditions such as lung disease, diabetes, and heart disease frequently receive attention for increasing the risk of complications for people who contract the coronavirus. Meanwhile, many members of the epilepsy community continue to wonder how the virus affects them. To address these concerns, the Epilepsy Foundation has released information that answers many common questions that people with epilepsy have about how COVID-19 can impact their health.
Perhaps the most pressing of these questions is: Does epilepsy increase the risk or severity of the coronavirus?
“The most common thing we’re hearing from patients in my practice is their proactive concern for being at increased risk for getting the coronavirus,” confirmed Selim Benbadis, MD, division director, epilepsy, EEG, and sleep medicine at the University of South Florida in Tampa. “Epilepsy patients are not at increased risk for complications from the coronavirus because epilepsy does not affect the immune system.”
In other words, people who have epilepsy face the same health challenges as people who do not have the condition and are otherwise healthy. For this reason, people who have epilepsy should exercise the same habits and preventative measures that healthy people would typically take, such as social distancing; avoiding contact with sick people; washing hands regularly; disinfecting surfaces regularly; and avoiding touching hands, eyes, nose and mouth.
However, as Dr. Benbadis explained, the high fever associated with coronavirus can trigger seizures. The increased risk is another reason people who have epilepsy should do their best to avoid getting sick.
Seizure medications do not increase COVID-19 risk but other conditions can
Similarly, epilepsy medications do not increase the risk of contracting the disease.
“The medications patients take to treat their epilepsy do not affect their immune system,” said Andrew Wilner, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. There are a few exceptions – such as adrenocorticotropic hormone and everolimus – but doctors rarely use these drugs to treat epilepsy.
However, there are some situations and conditions that may pose a risk for people who contact the coronavirus. For instance, people who have problems swallowing their food and tend to suck food down their windpipes are more likely to develop pneumonia. Also, much like the general population, having diabetes, heart disease, or lung problems increase the chances of developing complications from the virus.
The best ways to avoid additional risks in epilepsy
Because of the pandemic, people who have epilepsy may have found that many of their doctors’ appointments have been canceled. Many clinics and medical practices have done this in order minimize exposing people who have acute illnesses to the virus. By focusing more on patients with acute conditions, doctors and nurses can better tend to patients with acute problems. As a result, practices have shifted to providing patient care using telemedicine as much as possible.
“Telemedicine services have surged, and I’ve been saying for years that telemedicine was going to grow,” Dr. Benbadis said. “It’s more convenient, and I believe that we’re going to see increased use of telemedicine long after the coronavirus pandemic is over.”
Aside from communicating with their doctors, the Epilepsy Foundation and Dr. Wilner stress that the best way for people who have epilepsy to stay healthy is by taking their medications on a regular basis exactly as prescribed.
“Taking mediation correctly and regularly is the best strategy for epilepsy patients to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations,” Dr. Wilner said. “If they have breakthrough seizures and get sent to the emergency room, then they risk being exposed to the virus in the ER.”
Also, because ERs are more crowded than usual, the Epilepsy Foundation encourages people who suspect they have the coronavirus to call their doctor’s office first. The goal is to try to make sure that people who have severe or life-threatening symptoms have access to treatment in the ER.
As with the general population, the first thing that epilepsy patients who suspect they have the coronavirus should do is call his or her doctor’s office. The health care professional taking the call will ask the patient a series of questions to determine whether the patient has COVID-19 or another condition or needs to seek emergency medical attention.
Fever, cough, and trouble breathing fall among the most commonly reported symptoms of the coronavirus. In many cases, health care providers recommend that people with mild versions of these symptoms stay at home.
Helpful tips
The Epilepsy Foundation offers tips on signs to look for when trying to figure out when a seizure requires an ER visit. These are:
- Seizures in which awareness is lost for more than 5 minutes and no reversal medications are available.
- Seizures with an unusual pattern or duration.
- Seizures that cannot be treated safely at home or are not responding to rescue medication even after the medication has had enough time to work.
- Seizures that occur after a severe blow to the head.
Additionally, while COVID-19 can cause death and sudden death in patients, the virus does not cause sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Because SUDEP is extremely rare, Dr. Benbadis said that there is no information to suggest that contracting the coronavirus will increase the risk,
Finally, no shortages of seizures medications have been reported as a result of COVID-19. However, there were shortages of generic levetiracetam immediate-release and levetiracetam extended-release medications prior to and during COVID-19. Experts expect the shortage to continue.
Overall, people who have epilepsy should be able to stay healthy – provided they exercise healthy and preventative habits.
“The majority of epilepsy patients should be reassured that if they continue their usual care, take their meds as directed, get adequate sleep, nutritious diet, they’re not at any increased risk compared to the general population,” said Dr. Wilner.
Dr. Benbadis reported the following disclosures: consultant for Bioserenity (DigiTrace), Brain Sentinel, Cavion, Ceribell, Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Neuropace, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion; speakers bureau for Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Sunovion; Florida Medical Director of Stratus/Alliance; Member: Epilepsy Study Consortium; grant support from Cavion, LivaNova, Greenwich, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion, Takeda, UCB, Xenon; royalties as an author or editor for Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, UpToDate; editorial board for the Epilepsy.com (Epilepsy Foundation) controversy section, Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, Epileptic Disorders, Epilepsy and Behavior, and Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. Dr. Wilner reports Medical Advisory Board of Accordant Health Services, Greensboro, S.C., and book royalties: “The Locum Life: A Physician’s Guide to Locum Tenens,” Lulu Press.
Chronic conditions such as lung disease, diabetes, and heart disease frequently receive attention for increasing the risk of complications for people who contract the coronavirus. Meanwhile, many members of the epilepsy community continue to wonder how the virus affects them. To address these concerns, the Epilepsy Foundation has released information that answers many common questions that people with epilepsy have about how COVID-19 can impact their health.
Perhaps the most pressing of these questions is: Does epilepsy increase the risk or severity of the coronavirus?
“The most common thing we’re hearing from patients in my practice is their proactive concern for being at increased risk for getting the coronavirus,” confirmed Selim Benbadis, MD, division director, epilepsy, EEG, and sleep medicine at the University of South Florida in Tampa. “Epilepsy patients are not at increased risk for complications from the coronavirus because epilepsy does not affect the immune system.”
In other words, people who have epilepsy face the same health challenges as people who do not have the condition and are otherwise healthy. For this reason, people who have epilepsy should exercise the same habits and preventative measures that healthy people would typically take, such as social distancing; avoiding contact with sick people; washing hands regularly; disinfecting surfaces regularly; and avoiding touching hands, eyes, nose and mouth.
However, as Dr. Benbadis explained, the high fever associated with coronavirus can trigger seizures. The increased risk is another reason people who have epilepsy should do their best to avoid getting sick.
Seizure medications do not increase COVID-19 risk but other conditions can
Similarly, epilepsy medications do not increase the risk of contracting the disease.
“The medications patients take to treat their epilepsy do not affect their immune system,” said Andrew Wilner, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. There are a few exceptions – such as adrenocorticotropic hormone and everolimus – but doctors rarely use these drugs to treat epilepsy.
However, there are some situations and conditions that may pose a risk for people who contact the coronavirus. For instance, people who have problems swallowing their food and tend to suck food down their windpipes are more likely to develop pneumonia. Also, much like the general population, having diabetes, heart disease, or lung problems increase the chances of developing complications from the virus.
The best ways to avoid additional risks in epilepsy
Because of the pandemic, people who have epilepsy may have found that many of their doctors’ appointments have been canceled. Many clinics and medical practices have done this in order minimize exposing people who have acute illnesses to the virus. By focusing more on patients with acute conditions, doctors and nurses can better tend to patients with acute problems. As a result, practices have shifted to providing patient care using telemedicine as much as possible.
“Telemedicine services have surged, and I’ve been saying for years that telemedicine was going to grow,” Dr. Benbadis said. “It’s more convenient, and I believe that we’re going to see increased use of telemedicine long after the coronavirus pandemic is over.”
Aside from communicating with their doctors, the Epilepsy Foundation and Dr. Wilner stress that the best way for people who have epilepsy to stay healthy is by taking their medications on a regular basis exactly as prescribed.
“Taking mediation correctly and regularly is the best strategy for epilepsy patients to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations,” Dr. Wilner said. “If they have breakthrough seizures and get sent to the emergency room, then they risk being exposed to the virus in the ER.”
Also, because ERs are more crowded than usual, the Epilepsy Foundation encourages people who suspect they have the coronavirus to call their doctor’s office first. The goal is to try to make sure that people who have severe or life-threatening symptoms have access to treatment in the ER.
As with the general population, the first thing that epilepsy patients who suspect they have the coronavirus should do is call his or her doctor’s office. The health care professional taking the call will ask the patient a series of questions to determine whether the patient has COVID-19 or another condition or needs to seek emergency medical attention.
Fever, cough, and trouble breathing fall among the most commonly reported symptoms of the coronavirus. In many cases, health care providers recommend that people with mild versions of these symptoms stay at home.
Helpful tips
The Epilepsy Foundation offers tips on signs to look for when trying to figure out when a seizure requires an ER visit. These are:
- Seizures in which awareness is lost for more than 5 minutes and no reversal medications are available.
- Seizures with an unusual pattern or duration.
- Seizures that cannot be treated safely at home or are not responding to rescue medication even after the medication has had enough time to work.
- Seizures that occur after a severe blow to the head.
Additionally, while COVID-19 can cause death and sudden death in patients, the virus does not cause sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Because SUDEP is extremely rare, Dr. Benbadis said that there is no information to suggest that contracting the coronavirus will increase the risk,
Finally, no shortages of seizures medications have been reported as a result of COVID-19. However, there were shortages of generic levetiracetam immediate-release and levetiracetam extended-release medications prior to and during COVID-19. Experts expect the shortage to continue.
Overall, people who have epilepsy should be able to stay healthy – provided they exercise healthy and preventative habits.
“The majority of epilepsy patients should be reassured that if they continue their usual care, take their meds as directed, get adequate sleep, nutritious diet, they’re not at any increased risk compared to the general population,” said Dr. Wilner.
Dr. Benbadis reported the following disclosures: consultant for Bioserenity (DigiTrace), Brain Sentinel, Cavion, Ceribell, Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Neuropace, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion; speakers bureau for Eisai, Greenwich, LivaNova, Sunovion; Florida Medical Director of Stratus/Alliance; Member: Epilepsy Study Consortium; grant support from Cavion, LivaNova, Greenwich, SK biopharmaceuticals, Sunovion, Takeda, UCB, Xenon; royalties as an author or editor for Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, UpToDate; editorial board for the Epilepsy.com (Epilepsy Foundation) controversy section, Emedicine-Medscape-WebMD, Epileptic Disorders, Epilepsy and Behavior, and Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. Dr. Wilner reports Medical Advisory Board of Accordant Health Services, Greensboro, S.C., and book royalties: “The Locum Life: A Physician’s Guide to Locum Tenens,” Lulu Press.
COVID-19 antibody tests proliferate, but what do they show?
Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.
“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.
“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”
Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.
Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.
So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process
To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.
The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.
“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”
The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.
So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.
For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.
In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
Uncertainty Emphasized
The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.
Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”
The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.
“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.
Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”
Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.
“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”
So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.
“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.
Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests
Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.
The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.
In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.
The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.
“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.
“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”
During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”
When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.
“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.
“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.
“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”
Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.
Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.
So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process
To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.
The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.
“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”
The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.
So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.
For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.
In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
Uncertainty Emphasized
The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.
Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”
The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.
“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.
Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”
Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.
“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”
So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.
“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.
Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests
Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.
The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.
In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.
The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.
“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.
“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”
During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”
When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.
“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.
“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.
“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”
Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.
Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.
So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process
To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.
The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.
“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”
The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.
So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.
For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.
In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
Uncertainty Emphasized
The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.
Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”
The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.
“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.
Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”
Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.
“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”
So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.
“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.
Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests
Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.
The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.
In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.
The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.
“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.
“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”
During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”
When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.
“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sudden loss of taste and smell should be part of COVID-19 screen
A number of new publications show that a high proportion of people infected with COVID-19 report loss of smell and/or taste, with their authors adding to the clamor to recognize these symptoms as potentially indicative of the infection.
In particular, there is a belief that these signs may be present in many with asymptomatic COVID-19, and therefore asking about them could be a way to prioritize people for initial testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the absence of other symptoms.
Anyone testing positive could then quarantine, and their contacts could be traced.
Despite this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has not listed loss of smell or taste as potential symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
But the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now added “new loss of taste or smell” as a symptom on its COVID-19 information page.
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) executive vice president and CEO James C. Denneny III, MD, believes the symptoms may be an early warning signal.
And there’s no downside to checking for these, Denneny told Medscape Medical News.
“Given the fact that this doesn’t require any surgical procedure, biopsy, or specific treatment, I think the upside of getting it early is great,” he said. “The downside of using it as a symptom, and if someone doesn’t turn out to have it, is virtually zero.”
Claire Hopkins, MD, president of the British Rhinological Society, and colleagues, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases, agree.
“Physicians evaluating patients with acute-onset loss of smell or taste, particularly in the context of a patent nasal airway, should have a high index of suspicion for concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
They also observe that this appears to occur, in contrast to other respiratory infections, “in the absence of nasal congestion or rhinorrhea.”
Newest Publications Find Smell and Taste Loss Is Common
Author of one of the newly published studies, Carol H. Yan, MD, an otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at the University of California, San Diego, also thinks that sudden smell and taste loss seem to be fairly specific markers of COVID-19.
In her survey of patients who presented to UC San Diego Health for SARS-CoV-2 testing, Yan and colleagues reported that 68% (40 of 59) of COVID-19–positive patients reported olfactory impairment and 71% (42 of 59) reported taste impairment.
Among the 203 people in the “control” group who were polymerase chain reaction–negative (PCR–) for SARS-CoV-2, just 16% had smell loss and 17% had taste loss, according to their results published in the International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology.
“Based on our study, if you have smell and taste loss, you are more than 10 times more likely to have COVID-19 infection than other causes of infection. The most common first sign of a COVID-19 infection remains fever, but fatigue and loss of smell and taste follow as other very common initial symptoms,” said Yan.
“We know COVID-19 is an extremely contagious virus. This study supports the need to be aware of smell and taste loss as early signs of COVID-19.”
Yan told Medscape Medical News that another not-yet-published analysis indicates that sudden loss of smell or taste “may be more representative of a mild form of disease.”
Getting these people tested and isolated could therefore help prevent spread of COVID-19, she urged.
Based on Yan’s report and other case reports, the UC San Diego Health system is now asking all callers to its COVID-19 hotlines, and all visitors and staff, if they’ve had a sudden loss of taste or smell in the last few weeks, she explained.
And Ahmad R. Sedaghat, MD, PhD, at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, takes a similar view.
In a new systematic review of the topic published April 14 in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Sedaghat and colleagues write: “Anosmia (total loss of smell) without nasal obstruction, in particular, appears to be a highly specific indicator of COVID-19.”
Sedaghat said a sudden loss of sense of smell wouldn’t necessarily lead people to think they have COVID-19, particularly if they remain asymptomatic, so “these individuals could continue business as usual and spread the disease as a carrier.”
“If someone experiences anosmia without nasal obstruction, aside from quarantining, it would not be unreasonable to reach out to one’s primary care physician about getting tested,” he said in a statement from his institution.
Symptom Checkers Add Weight
Several organizations around the world have begun collecting symptom reports from patients and clinicians, which has shone more light on the sudden loss of taste and smell as potential flags for COVID-19.
In an April 14 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report from the CDC on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers, of the 5000 who reported symptoms, 750 (16%) wrote “loss of smell or taste” as an “other” symptom.
Meanwhile, the COVID Symptom Tracker smartphone app, a joint effort by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Stanford (Calif.) University, and King’s College, London, which as of press time, was monitoring some 2.5 million people, has had similar findings.
In a preprint publication on 400,000 people reporting one or more symptoms between March 24 and 29 on the tracker, 18% had lost their sense of smell or taste — more than the 10% who reported fever, but far less than the 53% who reported fatigue.
Only 1702 of the 400,000 had received a COVID-19 test.
Of those, 579 had tested positive and 1123 were negative.
The organizers estimated that of those who were positive, 59% reported losing smell or taste, compared with just 18% who tested negative.
“When combined with other symptoms, people with loss of smell and taste appear to be three times more likely to have contracted COVID-19 according to our data,” said Tim Spector, MD, a genetic epidemiologist at King’s College and the app’s lead researcher, on the symptom tracker’s website.
These people “should therefore self-isolate for 7 days to reduce the spread of the disease,” he urged.
Anosmia Is the Initial Symptom in Many Patients With COVID-19
The AAO-HNS also began collecting data from physicians and patients on March 25 through its Web-based 16-question symptom tracking tool.
It has received more than 500 reports of sudden taste or smell loss, said Denneny.
In a report on the first 237 responses, published in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, anosmia (profound loss of smell) was found in 73% of subjects before a COVID-19 diagnosis and was the initial symptom in 27% of those subjects.
That latter determination “was the single most important finding,” said Denneny, noting it shows that smell and taste loss are “a sentinel symptom.”
Anosmia led to testing in only 40% of the cases.
Half of the reports came from otolaryngologists, but a large number came from other medical specialties, especially from family medicine.
Just 2% of reports came from patients in that first group, which was based on responses through April 3.
Denneny said that more reports are now coming in from patients, which he attributes to widespread media coverage about the loss of taste and smell.
It’s still not entirely clear why SARS-CoV-2 might inhibit taste or smell. More common viruses like influenza and other coronaviruses can also cause smell and taste loss.
So far, it seems like the sensory recovery is faster for SARS-CoV-2 than the other viruses, which suggests a potentially different mechanism of action, said Yan. Patients she surveyed at UC San Diego recovered the senses within a few weeks to a month, compared to months or a year with the more common viruses.
Yan’s study was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health. Sedaghat has reported no relevant financial relationships. The COVID Symptom Tracker is supported by Zoe Global Limited and has received grants from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council/British Heart Foundation, and Biological Informative Markers for Stratification of Hypertension.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A number of new publications show that a high proportion of people infected with COVID-19 report loss of smell and/or taste, with their authors adding to the clamor to recognize these symptoms as potentially indicative of the infection.
In particular, there is a belief that these signs may be present in many with asymptomatic COVID-19, and therefore asking about them could be a way to prioritize people for initial testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the absence of other symptoms.
Anyone testing positive could then quarantine, and their contacts could be traced.
Despite this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has not listed loss of smell or taste as potential symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
But the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now added “new loss of taste or smell” as a symptom on its COVID-19 information page.
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) executive vice president and CEO James C. Denneny III, MD, believes the symptoms may be an early warning signal.
And there’s no downside to checking for these, Denneny told Medscape Medical News.
“Given the fact that this doesn’t require any surgical procedure, biopsy, or specific treatment, I think the upside of getting it early is great,” he said. “The downside of using it as a symptom, and if someone doesn’t turn out to have it, is virtually zero.”
Claire Hopkins, MD, president of the British Rhinological Society, and colleagues, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases, agree.
“Physicians evaluating patients with acute-onset loss of smell or taste, particularly in the context of a patent nasal airway, should have a high index of suspicion for concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
They also observe that this appears to occur, in contrast to other respiratory infections, “in the absence of nasal congestion or rhinorrhea.”
Newest Publications Find Smell and Taste Loss Is Common
Author of one of the newly published studies, Carol H. Yan, MD, an otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at the University of California, San Diego, also thinks that sudden smell and taste loss seem to be fairly specific markers of COVID-19.
In her survey of patients who presented to UC San Diego Health for SARS-CoV-2 testing, Yan and colleagues reported that 68% (40 of 59) of COVID-19–positive patients reported olfactory impairment and 71% (42 of 59) reported taste impairment.
Among the 203 people in the “control” group who were polymerase chain reaction–negative (PCR–) for SARS-CoV-2, just 16% had smell loss and 17% had taste loss, according to their results published in the International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology.
“Based on our study, if you have smell and taste loss, you are more than 10 times more likely to have COVID-19 infection than other causes of infection. The most common first sign of a COVID-19 infection remains fever, but fatigue and loss of smell and taste follow as other very common initial symptoms,” said Yan.
“We know COVID-19 is an extremely contagious virus. This study supports the need to be aware of smell and taste loss as early signs of COVID-19.”
Yan told Medscape Medical News that another not-yet-published analysis indicates that sudden loss of smell or taste “may be more representative of a mild form of disease.”
Getting these people tested and isolated could therefore help prevent spread of COVID-19, she urged.
Based on Yan’s report and other case reports, the UC San Diego Health system is now asking all callers to its COVID-19 hotlines, and all visitors and staff, if they’ve had a sudden loss of taste or smell in the last few weeks, she explained.
And Ahmad R. Sedaghat, MD, PhD, at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, takes a similar view.
In a new systematic review of the topic published April 14 in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Sedaghat and colleagues write: “Anosmia (total loss of smell) without nasal obstruction, in particular, appears to be a highly specific indicator of COVID-19.”
Sedaghat said a sudden loss of sense of smell wouldn’t necessarily lead people to think they have COVID-19, particularly if they remain asymptomatic, so “these individuals could continue business as usual and spread the disease as a carrier.”
“If someone experiences anosmia without nasal obstruction, aside from quarantining, it would not be unreasonable to reach out to one’s primary care physician about getting tested,” he said in a statement from his institution.
Symptom Checkers Add Weight
Several organizations around the world have begun collecting symptom reports from patients and clinicians, which has shone more light on the sudden loss of taste and smell as potential flags for COVID-19.
In an April 14 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report from the CDC on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers, of the 5000 who reported symptoms, 750 (16%) wrote “loss of smell or taste” as an “other” symptom.
Meanwhile, the COVID Symptom Tracker smartphone app, a joint effort by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Stanford (Calif.) University, and King’s College, London, which as of press time, was monitoring some 2.5 million people, has had similar findings.
In a preprint publication on 400,000 people reporting one or more symptoms between March 24 and 29 on the tracker, 18% had lost their sense of smell or taste — more than the 10% who reported fever, but far less than the 53% who reported fatigue.
Only 1702 of the 400,000 had received a COVID-19 test.
Of those, 579 had tested positive and 1123 were negative.
The organizers estimated that of those who were positive, 59% reported losing smell or taste, compared with just 18% who tested negative.
“When combined with other symptoms, people with loss of smell and taste appear to be three times more likely to have contracted COVID-19 according to our data,” said Tim Spector, MD, a genetic epidemiologist at King’s College and the app’s lead researcher, on the symptom tracker’s website.
These people “should therefore self-isolate for 7 days to reduce the spread of the disease,” he urged.
Anosmia Is the Initial Symptom in Many Patients With COVID-19
The AAO-HNS also began collecting data from physicians and patients on March 25 through its Web-based 16-question symptom tracking tool.
It has received more than 500 reports of sudden taste or smell loss, said Denneny.
In a report on the first 237 responses, published in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, anosmia (profound loss of smell) was found in 73% of subjects before a COVID-19 diagnosis and was the initial symptom in 27% of those subjects.
That latter determination “was the single most important finding,” said Denneny, noting it shows that smell and taste loss are “a sentinel symptom.”
Anosmia led to testing in only 40% of the cases.
Half of the reports came from otolaryngologists, but a large number came from other medical specialties, especially from family medicine.
Just 2% of reports came from patients in that first group, which was based on responses through April 3.
Denneny said that more reports are now coming in from patients, which he attributes to widespread media coverage about the loss of taste and smell.
It’s still not entirely clear why SARS-CoV-2 might inhibit taste or smell. More common viruses like influenza and other coronaviruses can also cause smell and taste loss.
So far, it seems like the sensory recovery is faster for SARS-CoV-2 than the other viruses, which suggests a potentially different mechanism of action, said Yan. Patients she surveyed at UC San Diego recovered the senses within a few weeks to a month, compared to months or a year with the more common viruses.
Yan’s study was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health. Sedaghat has reported no relevant financial relationships. The COVID Symptom Tracker is supported by Zoe Global Limited and has received grants from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council/British Heart Foundation, and Biological Informative Markers for Stratification of Hypertension.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A number of new publications show that a high proportion of people infected with COVID-19 report loss of smell and/or taste, with their authors adding to the clamor to recognize these symptoms as potentially indicative of the infection.
In particular, there is a belief that these signs may be present in many with asymptomatic COVID-19, and therefore asking about them could be a way to prioritize people for initial testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the absence of other symptoms.
Anyone testing positive could then quarantine, and their contacts could be traced.
Despite this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has not listed loss of smell or taste as potential symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
But the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now added “new loss of taste or smell” as a symptom on its COVID-19 information page.
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) executive vice president and CEO James C. Denneny III, MD, believes the symptoms may be an early warning signal.
And there’s no downside to checking for these, Denneny told Medscape Medical News.
“Given the fact that this doesn’t require any surgical procedure, biopsy, or specific treatment, I think the upside of getting it early is great,” he said. “The downside of using it as a symptom, and if someone doesn’t turn out to have it, is virtually zero.”
Claire Hopkins, MD, president of the British Rhinological Society, and colleagues, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases, agree.
“Physicians evaluating patients with acute-onset loss of smell or taste, particularly in the context of a patent nasal airway, should have a high index of suspicion for concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
They also observe that this appears to occur, in contrast to other respiratory infections, “in the absence of nasal congestion or rhinorrhea.”
Newest Publications Find Smell and Taste Loss Is Common
Author of one of the newly published studies, Carol H. Yan, MD, an otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at the University of California, San Diego, also thinks that sudden smell and taste loss seem to be fairly specific markers of COVID-19.
In her survey of patients who presented to UC San Diego Health for SARS-CoV-2 testing, Yan and colleagues reported that 68% (40 of 59) of COVID-19–positive patients reported olfactory impairment and 71% (42 of 59) reported taste impairment.
Among the 203 people in the “control” group who were polymerase chain reaction–negative (PCR–) for SARS-CoV-2, just 16% had smell loss and 17% had taste loss, according to their results published in the International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology.
“Based on our study, if you have smell and taste loss, you are more than 10 times more likely to have COVID-19 infection than other causes of infection. The most common first sign of a COVID-19 infection remains fever, but fatigue and loss of smell and taste follow as other very common initial symptoms,” said Yan.
“We know COVID-19 is an extremely contagious virus. This study supports the need to be aware of smell and taste loss as early signs of COVID-19.”
Yan told Medscape Medical News that another not-yet-published analysis indicates that sudden loss of smell or taste “may be more representative of a mild form of disease.”
Getting these people tested and isolated could therefore help prevent spread of COVID-19, she urged.
Based on Yan’s report and other case reports, the UC San Diego Health system is now asking all callers to its COVID-19 hotlines, and all visitors and staff, if they’ve had a sudden loss of taste or smell in the last few weeks, she explained.
And Ahmad R. Sedaghat, MD, PhD, at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, takes a similar view.
In a new systematic review of the topic published April 14 in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Sedaghat and colleagues write: “Anosmia (total loss of smell) without nasal obstruction, in particular, appears to be a highly specific indicator of COVID-19.”
Sedaghat said a sudden loss of sense of smell wouldn’t necessarily lead people to think they have COVID-19, particularly if they remain asymptomatic, so “these individuals could continue business as usual and spread the disease as a carrier.”
“If someone experiences anosmia without nasal obstruction, aside from quarantining, it would not be unreasonable to reach out to one’s primary care physician about getting tested,” he said in a statement from his institution.
Symptom Checkers Add Weight
Several organizations around the world have begun collecting symptom reports from patients and clinicians, which has shone more light on the sudden loss of taste and smell as potential flags for COVID-19.
In an April 14 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report from the CDC on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers, of the 5000 who reported symptoms, 750 (16%) wrote “loss of smell or taste” as an “other” symptom.
Meanwhile, the COVID Symptom Tracker smartphone app, a joint effort by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Stanford (Calif.) University, and King’s College, London, which as of press time, was monitoring some 2.5 million people, has had similar findings.
In a preprint publication on 400,000 people reporting one or more symptoms between March 24 and 29 on the tracker, 18% had lost their sense of smell or taste — more than the 10% who reported fever, but far less than the 53% who reported fatigue.
Only 1702 of the 400,000 had received a COVID-19 test.
Of those, 579 had tested positive and 1123 were negative.
The organizers estimated that of those who were positive, 59% reported losing smell or taste, compared with just 18% who tested negative.
“When combined with other symptoms, people with loss of smell and taste appear to be three times more likely to have contracted COVID-19 according to our data,” said Tim Spector, MD, a genetic epidemiologist at King’s College and the app’s lead researcher, on the symptom tracker’s website.
These people “should therefore self-isolate for 7 days to reduce the spread of the disease,” he urged.
Anosmia Is the Initial Symptom in Many Patients With COVID-19
The AAO-HNS also began collecting data from physicians and patients on March 25 through its Web-based 16-question symptom tracking tool.
It has received more than 500 reports of sudden taste or smell loss, said Denneny.
In a report on the first 237 responses, published in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, anosmia (profound loss of smell) was found in 73% of subjects before a COVID-19 diagnosis and was the initial symptom in 27% of those subjects.
That latter determination “was the single most important finding,” said Denneny, noting it shows that smell and taste loss are “a sentinel symptom.”
Anosmia led to testing in only 40% of the cases.
Half of the reports came from otolaryngologists, but a large number came from other medical specialties, especially from family medicine.
Just 2% of reports came from patients in that first group, which was based on responses through April 3.
Denneny said that more reports are now coming in from patients, which he attributes to widespread media coverage about the loss of taste and smell.
It’s still not entirely clear why SARS-CoV-2 might inhibit taste or smell. More common viruses like influenza and other coronaviruses can also cause smell and taste loss.
So far, it seems like the sensory recovery is faster for SARS-CoV-2 than the other viruses, which suggests a potentially different mechanism of action, said Yan. Patients she surveyed at UC San Diego recovered the senses within a few weeks to a month, compared to months or a year with the more common viruses.
Yan’s study was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health. Sedaghat has reported no relevant financial relationships. The COVID Symptom Tracker is supported by Zoe Global Limited and has received grants from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council/British Heart Foundation, and Biological Informative Markers for Stratification of Hypertension.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.