Pulmonology

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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.

Courtesy Dr. Luciano Gattinoni

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.”

[email protected]

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.

Courtesy Dr. Luciano Gattinoni

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.”

[email protected]

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.

Courtesy Dr. Luciano Gattinoni

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.”

[email protected]

Use of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide may be a useful prognostic tool in patients with chronic pulmonary disease who develop pulmonary hypertension, results from a single-center retrospective cohort study found.

“Historically, COPD-PH was thought to develop as the severity of airflow obstruction, measured by Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV₁), and subsequent chronic hypoxemia progressed,” authors led by Aparna Balasubramanian, MD, wrote in a study published online in CHEST. “However, airflow obstruction has increasingly been noted to be insufficient in predicting clinical outcomes in the general COPD population.”

Dr. Balasubramanian of the Johns Hopkins University Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Baltimore, and colleagues went on to note that, while studies in COPD-PH have identified hemodynamic measures as better predictors of prognosis, these metrics require right-heart catheterization (RHC), an invasive procedure that carries its own risks. “An alternative noninvasive measure of interest is diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). DLCO is a measure of gas exchange reflective of the complex interactions occurring at the alveolar-capillary interface, including morphologic changes in the pulmonary vasculature,” they wrote. “Recent work by our group in a large COPD cohort has demonstrated that DLCO is an indicator of disease morbidity beyond that represented by airflow obstruction or by CT evidence of emphysema alone. This may be particularly relevant for those with COPD-PH.”

The study population consisted of 71 patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Pulmonary Hypertension Registry between January 2000 and January 2018, all of whom had right-heart catheterization (RHC)–proven PH and pulmonary function testing (PFT) data within 1 year of diagnostic RHC. The researchers calculated transplant-free survival from index RHC and used Cox proportional hazard methods to determine transplant-free survival with age, pulmonary vascular resistance, FEV₁, oxygen use, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide included as covariates.

The average age of patients was 65 years, 66% were female, their average body mass index was 28.3 kg/m², and the mean number of pack-years smoked was 44. On unadjusted analysis, the transplant-free survival was 87% at 1 year, 60% at 3 years, and 51% at 5 years. Survival was associated with reduced DLCO across the observed range of pulmonary artery pressures and pulmonary vascular resistance. The researchers found that severe DLCO impairment was associated with poorer survival (P less than .001), and when they adjusted for covariates, they found that mortality increased by 4% for every percent predicted decrease in DLCO (hazard ratio, 1.04).

“This study demonstrates that DLCO, a readily available, inexpensive, noninvasive measurement, is a strong independent predictor of mortality in COPD patients with PH,” the authors concluded. “The presented findings suggest that DLCO should be considered for inclusion in prognostic tools for COPD-PH.”

Dr. Balasubramanian and associates acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its modest sample size and single-center design and the fact that the cohort underwent subspecialty referral and invasive testing, thereby limiting its generalizability to the larger COPD population. “The findings do, however, offer insight into clinical and physiologic characteristics at one extreme of the pulmonary vascular disease spectrum among COPD patients, and generate hypotheses regarding measures that warrant further exploration in the larger COPD population,” they wrote.

The study was supported by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. One of the study authors has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Celgene and receives royalties from UpToDate for authorship. Another study author has served as a consultant for Arena, Actelion, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics, and has served on the Scientific Leadership Council of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. He also serves on the Rare Disease Advisory Panel of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The other study authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balasubramanian A et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.047.

Use of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide may be a useful prognostic tool in patients with chronic pulmonary disease who develop pulmonary hypertension, results from a single-center retrospective cohort study found.

“Historically, COPD-PH was thought to develop as the severity of airflow obstruction, measured by Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV₁), and subsequent chronic hypoxemia progressed,” authors led by Aparna Balasubramanian, MD, wrote in a study published online in CHEST. “However, airflow obstruction has increasingly been noted to be insufficient in predicting clinical outcomes in the general COPD population.”

Dr. Balasubramanian of the Johns Hopkins University Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Baltimore, and colleagues went on to note that, while studies in COPD-PH have identified hemodynamic measures as better predictors of prognosis, these metrics require right-heart catheterization (RHC), an invasive procedure that carries its own risks. “An alternative noninvasive measure of interest is diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). DLCO is a measure of gas exchange reflective of the complex interactions occurring at the alveolar-capillary interface, including morphologic changes in the pulmonary vasculature,” they wrote. “Recent work by our group in a large COPD cohort has demonstrated that DLCO is an indicator of disease morbidity beyond that represented by airflow obstruction or by CT evidence of emphysema alone. This may be particularly relevant for those with COPD-PH.”

The study population consisted of 71 patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Pulmonary Hypertension Registry between January 2000 and January 2018, all of whom had right-heart catheterization (RHC)–proven PH and pulmonary function testing (PFT) data within 1 year of diagnostic RHC. The researchers calculated transplant-free survival from index RHC and used Cox proportional hazard methods to determine transplant-free survival with age, pulmonary vascular resistance, FEV₁, oxygen use, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide included as covariates.

The average age of patients was 65 years, 66% were female, their average body mass index was 28.3 kg/m², and the mean number of pack-years smoked was 44. On unadjusted analysis, the transplant-free survival was 87% at 1 year, 60% at 3 years, and 51% at 5 years. Survival was associated with reduced DLCO across the observed range of pulmonary artery pressures and pulmonary vascular resistance. The researchers found that severe DLCO impairment was associated with poorer survival (P less than .001), and when they adjusted for covariates, they found that mortality increased by 4% for every percent predicted decrease in DLCO (hazard ratio, 1.04).

“This study demonstrates that DLCO, a readily available, inexpensive, noninvasive measurement, is a strong independent predictor of mortality in COPD patients with PH,” the authors concluded. “The presented findings suggest that DLCO should be considered for inclusion in prognostic tools for COPD-PH.”

Dr. Balasubramanian and associates acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its modest sample size and single-center design and the fact that the cohort underwent subspecialty referral and invasive testing, thereby limiting its generalizability to the larger COPD population. “The findings do, however, offer insight into clinical and physiologic characteristics at one extreme of the pulmonary vascular disease spectrum among COPD patients, and generate hypotheses regarding measures that warrant further exploration in the larger COPD population,” they wrote.

The study was supported by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. One of the study authors has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Celgene and receives royalties from UpToDate for authorship. Another study author has served as a consultant for Arena, Actelion, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics, and has served on the Scientific Leadership Council of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. He also serves on the Rare Disease Advisory Panel of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The other study authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balasubramanian A et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.047.

Use of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide may be a useful prognostic tool in patients with chronic pulmonary disease who develop pulmonary hypertension, results from a single-center retrospective cohort study found.

“Historically, COPD-PH was thought to develop as the severity of airflow obstruction, measured by Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV₁), and subsequent chronic hypoxemia progressed,” authors led by Aparna Balasubramanian, MD, wrote in a study published online in CHEST. “However, airflow obstruction has increasingly been noted to be insufficient in predicting clinical outcomes in the general COPD population.”

Dr. Balasubramanian of the Johns Hopkins University Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Baltimore, and colleagues went on to note that, while studies in COPD-PH have identified hemodynamic measures as better predictors of prognosis, these metrics require right-heart catheterization (RHC), an invasive procedure that carries its own risks. “An alternative noninvasive measure of interest is diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). DLCO is a measure of gas exchange reflective of the complex interactions occurring at the alveolar-capillary interface, including morphologic changes in the pulmonary vasculature,” they wrote. “Recent work by our group in a large COPD cohort has demonstrated that DLCO is an indicator of disease morbidity beyond that represented by airflow obstruction or by CT evidence of emphysema alone. This may be particularly relevant for those with COPD-PH.”

The study population consisted of 71 patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Pulmonary Hypertension Registry between January 2000 and January 2018, all of whom had right-heart catheterization (RHC)–proven PH and pulmonary function testing (PFT) data within 1 year of diagnostic RHC. The researchers calculated transplant-free survival from index RHC and used Cox proportional hazard methods to determine transplant-free survival with age, pulmonary vascular resistance, FEV₁, oxygen use, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide included as covariates.

The average age of patients was 65 years, 66% were female, their average body mass index was 28.3 kg/m², and the mean number of pack-years smoked was 44. On unadjusted analysis, the transplant-free survival was 87% at 1 year, 60% at 3 years, and 51% at 5 years. Survival was associated with reduced DLCO across the observed range of pulmonary artery pressures and pulmonary vascular resistance. The researchers found that severe DLCO impairment was associated with poorer survival (P less than .001), and when they adjusted for covariates, they found that mortality increased by 4% for every percent predicted decrease in DLCO (hazard ratio, 1.04).

“This study demonstrates that DLCO, a readily available, inexpensive, noninvasive measurement, is a strong independent predictor of mortality in COPD patients with PH,” the authors concluded. “The presented findings suggest that DLCO should be considered for inclusion in prognostic tools for COPD-PH.”

Dr. Balasubramanian and associates acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its modest sample size and single-center design and the fact that the cohort underwent subspecialty referral and invasive testing, thereby limiting its generalizability to the larger COPD population. “The findings do, however, offer insight into clinical and physiologic characteristics at one extreme of the pulmonary vascular disease spectrum among COPD patients, and generate hypotheses regarding measures that warrant further exploration in the larger COPD population,” they wrote.

The study was supported by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. One of the study authors has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Celgene and receives royalties from UpToDate for authorship. Another study author has served as a consultant for Arena, Actelion, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics, and has served on the Scientific Leadership Council of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. He also serves on the Rare Disease Advisory Panel of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The other study authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balasubramanian A et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.047.

A research team at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has begun a trial to compare the value of tracking daily activity and the Six Minute Walk Distance to predict pulmonary hypertension prognosis. The Longitudinal Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics Program (L-PVDOMICS), a prospective, longitudinal, observational study will track daily activity and patient-reported outcomes in participants enrolled. Patients with pulmonary hypertension and healthy participants will undergo activity monitoring for 12 weeks once a year for 4 years. Metrics will include patient-reported outcomes including quality of life (emphasis-10, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, and SF-36 surveys), medication changes, hospitalization, and death.

The study is designed to establish the clinical utility of daily activity tracking in patients with pulmonary hypertension and to identify clinical factors associated with reduced daily activity. Five hundred patients are expected to enroll and the estimated closing date is June 2023. The hypothesis for the study is that daily activity will have stronger prognostic value after 12 weeks than the Six Minute Walk Distance in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Participants will wear an accelerometer to record activity level to determine daily activities and will also engage in the Six Minute Walk Distance Test.

Individuals that are pregnant or have been hospitalized within the past 3 months will be excluded. Participants are currently being recruited.

The trial sponsor is Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

[email protected]

A research team at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has begun a trial to compare the value of tracking daily activity and the Six Minute Walk Distance to predict pulmonary hypertension prognosis. The Longitudinal Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics Program (L-PVDOMICS), a prospective, longitudinal, observational study will track daily activity and patient-reported outcomes in participants enrolled. Patients with pulmonary hypertension and healthy participants will undergo activity monitoring for 12 weeks once a year for 4 years. Metrics will include patient-reported outcomes including quality of life (emphasis-10, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, and SF-36 surveys), medication changes, hospitalization, and death.

The study is designed to establish the clinical utility of daily activity tracking in patients with pulmonary hypertension and to identify clinical factors associated with reduced daily activity. Five hundred patients are expected to enroll and the estimated closing date is June 2023. The hypothesis for the study is that daily activity will have stronger prognostic value after 12 weeks than the Six Minute Walk Distance in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Participants will wear an accelerometer to record activity level to determine daily activities and will also engage in the Six Minute Walk Distance Test.

Individuals that are pregnant or have been hospitalized within the past 3 months will be excluded. Participants are currently being recruited.

The trial sponsor is Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

[email protected]

A research team at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has begun a trial to compare the value of tracking daily activity and the Six Minute Walk Distance to predict pulmonary hypertension prognosis. The Longitudinal Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics Program (L-PVDOMICS), a prospective, longitudinal, observational study will track daily activity and patient-reported outcomes in participants enrolled. Patients with pulmonary hypertension and healthy participants will undergo activity monitoring for 12 weeks once a year for 4 years. Metrics will include patient-reported outcomes including quality of life (emphasis-10, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, and SF-36 surveys), medication changes, hospitalization, and death.

The study is designed to establish the clinical utility of daily activity tracking in patients with pulmonary hypertension and to identify clinical factors associated with reduced daily activity. Five hundred patients are expected to enroll and the estimated closing date is June 2023. The hypothesis for the study is that daily activity will have stronger prognostic value after 12 weeks than the Six Minute Walk Distance in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Participants will wear an accelerometer to record activity level to determine daily activities and will also engage in the Six Minute Walk Distance Test.

Individuals that are pregnant or have been hospitalized within the past 3 months will be excluded. Participants are currently being recruited.

The trial sponsor is Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

[email protected]

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]