AGA has partnered with Rx.Health, a digital health company, to create a colorectal cancer (CRC) preparatory app.

You want to find ways to improve your patient outcomes and reduce your practice costs? Now, there is an app for that. The CRC preparatory app can reduce expenses you lose from aborted or incomplete colonoscopies.

Launched in 2019, the CRC app is already generating remarkable results. The Arizona Center for Digestive Health used the CRC app and recorded a 24% improvement in bowel preparation by colonoscopy patients, a 50% reduction in aborted procedures and a 93% patient satisfaction rate. Research conducted by Rx.Health also determined patients were using the CRC app two to four times longer than competing apps, and the CRC app was saving gastroenterologists between $20,000 and $40,000 annually.

Plans are underway between AGA and Rx.Health to expand the partnership to build apps for colorectal cancer surveillance, an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and other GI disorders.

Interested in learning more? Visit rx.health/gi.

ginews@gastro.org

AGA has partnered with Rx.Health, a digital health company, to create a colorectal cancer (CRC) preparatory app.

You want to find ways to improve your patient outcomes and reduce your practice costs? Now, there is an app for that. The CRC preparatory app can reduce expenses you lose from aborted or incomplete colonoscopies.

Launched in 2019, the CRC app is already generating remarkable results. The Arizona Center for Digestive Health used the CRC app and recorded a 24% improvement in bowel preparation by colonoscopy patients, a 50% reduction in aborted procedures and a 93% patient satisfaction rate. Research conducted by Rx.Health also determined patients were using the CRC app two to four times longer than competing apps, and the CRC app was saving gastroenterologists between $20,000 and $40,000 annually.

Plans are underway between AGA and Rx.Health to expand the partnership to build apps for colorectal cancer surveillance, an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and other GI disorders.

Interested in learning more? Visit rx.health/gi.

ginews@gastro.org

AGA has partnered with Rx.Health, a digital health company, to create a colorectal cancer (CRC) preparatory app.

You want to find ways to improve your patient outcomes and reduce your practice costs? Now, there is an app for that. The CRC preparatory app can reduce expenses you lose from aborted or incomplete colonoscopies.

Launched in 2019, the CRC app is already generating remarkable results. The Arizona Center for Digestive Health used the CRC app and recorded a 24% improvement in bowel preparation by colonoscopy patients, a 50% reduction in aborted procedures and a 93% patient satisfaction rate. Research conducted by Rx.Health also determined patients were using the CRC app two to four times longer than competing apps, and the CRC app was saving gastroenterologists between $20,000 and $40,000 annually.

Plans are underway between AGA and Rx.Health to expand the partnership to build apps for colorectal cancer surveillance, an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and other GI disorders.

Interested in learning more? Visit rx.health/gi.

ginews@gastro.org

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an experience that is unprecedented in our lifetime. It is having a pervasive effect due to how mysterious, potentially dangerous, and sustained it is. We don’t know how bad it’s going to get or how long it’s going to last. We have natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, but they are limited in time and scope. But this global pandemic is something we can’t put our arms around just yet, breeding uncertainty, worry, and fear. This is where mental health professionals need to come in.

The populations being affected by this pandemic can be placed into different groups on the basis of their mental health consequences and needs. First you have, for lack of a better term, “the worried well.” These are people with no preexisting mental disorder who are naturally worried by this and are trying to take appropriate actions to protect themselves and prepare. For such individuals, the equivalent of mental health first-aid should be useful (we’ll come back to that in a moment). Given the proper guidance and sources of information, most such people should be able to manage the anxiety, worry, and dysphoria associated with this critical pandemic.

Then there are those who have preexisting mental conditions related to mood, anxiety, stress, or obsessive tendencies. They are probably going to have an increase in their symptoms, and as such, a corresponding need for adjusting treatment. This may require an increase in their existing medications or the addition of an ad hoc medication, or perhaps more frequent contact with their doctor or therapist.

Because travel and direct visitation is discouraged at the moment, virtual methods of communication should be used to speak with these patients. Such methods have long existed but haven’t been adopted in large numbers; this may be the impetus to finally make it happen. Using the telephone, FaceTime, Skype, WebEx, Zoom, and other means of videoconferencing should be feasible. As billing procedures are being adapted for this moment, there’s no reason why individuals shouldn’t be able to contact their mental health provider.

Substance abuse is also a condition vulnerable to the stress effects of this pandemic. This will prompt or tempt those to use substances that they’ve abused or turned to in the past as a way of self-medicating and assuaging their anxiety and worry.

Interestingly, people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and nonaffective and affective psychoses, seem to be less vulnerable to the stress-inducing effects of catastrophe. It’s possible that the pandemic could find its way into delusions or exacerbate symptoms, but somewhat paradoxically, people with serious mental illnesses often respond more calmly to crises than do individuals without them. As a result, the number of these patients requiring emergency room admission for possible exacerbation of symptoms is probably not going to be that much greater than normal.

How to Cope With an Unprecedented Situation

For the worried well and for the clinicians who have understandable fears about exposure, there are several things you can try to manage your anxiety. There are concentric circles of concern that you have to maintain. Think of it like the instructions on an airplane when, if there’s a drop in cabin pressure, you’re asked to apply your own oxygen mask first before placing one on your child. In the same way, you must first think about protecting yourself by limiting your exposure and monitoring your own physical state for any symptoms. But then you must be concerned about your family, your friends, and also society. This is a situation where the impulse and the ethos of worrying about your fellow persons—being your brother’s keeper—is imperative.

The epidemic has been successfully managed in some countries, like Singapore and China, which, once they got on top of it, were able to limit contagion in a very dramatic way. But these are authoritarian governments. The United States doesn’t work that way, which is what makes appealing to the principle of caring for others so crucial. You can protect yourself, but if other people aren’t also protected, it may not matter. You have to worry not just about yourself but about everyone else.

When it comes to stress management, I recommend not catastrophizing or watching the news media 24/7. Distract yourself with other work or recreational activities. Reach out and communicate—virtually, of course—with friends, family, and healthcare providers as needed. Staying in touch acts not just as a diversion but also as an outlet for assuaging your feelings, your sense of being in this alone, feeling isolated.

There are also cognitive reframing mechanisms you can employ. Consider that although this is bad, some countries have already gone through it. And we’ll get through it too. You’ll understandably ask yourself what it would mean if you were to be exposed. In most cases you can say, “I’m going to have the flu and symptoms that are not going to be pleasant, but I’ve had the flu or serious sickness before.”

Remember that there are already antiretroviral treatments being tested in clinical trials and showing efficacy. It’s good to know that before this pandemic ends, some of these treatments will probably be clinically applied, mostly to those who are severely affected and in intensive care.

Diagnose yourself. Monitor your state. Determine whether the stress is really having an impact on you. Is it affecting your sleep, appetite, concentration, mood? And if you do have a preexisting psychiatric condition, don’t feel afraid to reach out to your mental health provider. Understand that you’re going to be anxious, which may aggravate your symptoms and require an adjustment in your treatment. That’s okay. It’s to be expected and your provider should be available to help you.

Controlling this outbreak via the same epidemiologic infectious disease prevention guidance that works in authoritarian societies is not going to be applicable here because of the liberties that we experience in American society. What will determine our success is the belief that we’re in this together, that we’re going to help each other. We should be proud of that, as it shows how Americans and people around the world stand up in situations like this.

Let’s also note that even though everybody is affected and undergoing previously unimaginable levels of anticipated stress and dislocation, it’s the healthcare providers who are really on the frontlines. They’re under tremendous pressure to continue to perform heroically, at great risk to themselves. They deserve a real debt of gratitude.

We will get through this, but as we do, it will not end until we’ve undergone an extreme test of our character. I certainly hope and trust that we will be up to it.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Disclosure: Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Clintara; Intracellular Therapies. Received research grant from Alkermes; Biomarin; EnVivo/Forum; Genentech; Novartis/Novation; Sunovion. Patent: Repligen.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an experience that is unprecedented in our lifetime. It is having a pervasive effect due to how mysterious, potentially dangerous, and sustained it is. We don’t know how bad it’s going to get or how long it’s going to last. We have natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, but they are limited in time and scope. But this global pandemic is something we can’t put our arms around just yet, breeding uncertainty, worry, and fear. This is where mental health professionals need to come in.

The populations being affected by this pandemic can be placed into different groups on the basis of their mental health consequences and needs. First you have, for lack of a better term, “the worried well.” These are people with no preexisting mental disorder who are naturally worried by this and are trying to take appropriate actions to protect themselves and prepare. For such individuals, the equivalent of mental health first-aid should be useful (we’ll come back to that in a moment). Given the proper guidance and sources of information, most such people should be able to manage the anxiety, worry, and dysphoria associated with this critical pandemic.

Then there are those who have preexisting mental conditions related to mood, anxiety, stress, or obsessive tendencies. They are probably going to have an increase in their symptoms, and as such, a corresponding need for adjusting treatment. This may require an increase in their existing medications or the addition of an ad hoc medication, or perhaps more frequent contact with their doctor or therapist.

Because travel and direct visitation is discouraged at the moment, virtual methods of communication should be used to speak with these patients. Such methods have long existed but haven’t been adopted in large numbers; this may be the impetus to finally make it happen. Using the telephone, FaceTime, Skype, WebEx, Zoom, and other means of videoconferencing should be feasible. As billing procedures are being adapted for this moment, there’s no reason why individuals shouldn’t be able to contact their mental health provider.

Substance abuse is also a condition vulnerable to the stress effects of this pandemic. This will prompt or tempt those to use substances that they’ve abused or turned to in the past as a way of self-medicating and assuaging their anxiety and worry.

Interestingly, people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and nonaffective and affective psychoses, seem to be less vulnerable to the stress-inducing effects of catastrophe. It’s possible that the pandemic could find its way into delusions or exacerbate symptoms, but somewhat paradoxically, people with serious mental illnesses often respond more calmly to crises than do individuals without them. As a result, the number of these patients requiring emergency room admission for possible exacerbation of symptoms is probably not going to be that much greater than normal.

How to Cope With an Unprecedented Situation

For the worried well and for the clinicians who have understandable fears about exposure, there are several things you can try to manage your anxiety. There are concentric circles of concern that you have to maintain. Think of it like the instructions on an airplane when, if there’s a drop in cabin pressure, you’re asked to apply your own oxygen mask first before placing one on your child. In the same way, you must first think about protecting yourself by limiting your exposure and monitoring your own physical state for any symptoms. But then you must be concerned about your family, your friends, and also society. This is a situation where the impulse and the ethos of worrying about your fellow persons—being your brother’s keeper—is imperative.

The epidemic has been successfully managed in some countries, like Singapore and China, which, once they got on top of it, were able to limit contagion in a very dramatic way. But these are authoritarian governments. The United States doesn’t work that way, which is what makes appealing to the principle of caring for others so crucial. You can protect yourself, but if other people aren’t also protected, it may not matter. You have to worry not just about yourself but about everyone else.

When it comes to stress management, I recommend not catastrophizing or watching the news media 24/7. Distract yourself with other work or recreational activities. Reach out and communicate—virtually, of course—with friends, family, and healthcare providers as needed. Staying in touch acts not just as a diversion but also as an outlet for assuaging your feelings, your sense of being in this alone, feeling isolated.

There are also cognitive reframing mechanisms you can employ. Consider that although this is bad, some countries have already gone through it. And we’ll get through it too. You’ll understandably ask yourself what it would mean if you were to be exposed. In most cases you can say, “I’m going to have the flu and symptoms that are not going to be pleasant, but I’ve had the flu or serious sickness before.”

Remember that there are already antiretroviral treatments being tested in clinical trials and showing efficacy. It’s good to know that before this pandemic ends, some of these treatments will probably be clinically applied, mostly to those who are severely affected and in intensive care.

Diagnose yourself. Monitor your state. Determine whether the stress is really having an impact on you. Is it affecting your sleep, appetite, concentration, mood? And if you do have a preexisting psychiatric condition, don’t feel afraid to reach out to your mental health provider. Understand that you’re going to be anxious, which may aggravate your symptoms and require an adjustment in your treatment. That’s okay. It’s to be expected and your provider should be available to help you.

Controlling this outbreak via the same epidemiologic infectious disease prevention guidance that works in authoritarian societies is not going to be applicable here because of the liberties that we experience in American society. What will determine our success is the belief that we’re in this together, that we’re going to help each other. We should be proud of that, as it shows how Americans and people around the world stand up in situations like this.

Let’s also note that even though everybody is affected and undergoing previously unimaginable levels of anticipated stress and dislocation, it’s the healthcare providers who are really on the frontlines. They’re under tremendous pressure to continue to perform heroically, at great risk to themselves. They deserve a real debt of gratitude.

We will get through this, but as we do, it will not end until we’ve undergone an extreme test of our character. I certainly hope and trust that we will be up to it.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Disclosure: Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Clintara; Intracellular Therapies. Received research grant from Alkermes; Biomarin; EnVivo/Forum; Genentech; Novartis/Novation; Sunovion. Patent: Repligen.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an experience that is unprecedented in our lifetime. It is having a pervasive effect due to how mysterious, potentially dangerous, and sustained it is. We don’t know how bad it’s going to get or how long it’s going to last. We have natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, but they are limited in time and scope. But this global pandemic is something we can’t put our arms around just yet, breeding uncertainty, worry, and fear. This is where mental health professionals need to come in.

The populations being affected by this pandemic can be placed into different groups on the basis of their mental health consequences and needs. First you have, for lack of a better term, “the worried well.” These are people with no preexisting mental disorder who are naturally worried by this and are trying to take appropriate actions to protect themselves and prepare. For such individuals, the equivalent of mental health first-aid should be useful (we’ll come back to that in a moment). Given the proper guidance and sources of information, most such people should be able to manage the anxiety, worry, and dysphoria associated with this critical pandemic.

Then there are those who have preexisting mental conditions related to mood, anxiety, stress, or obsessive tendencies. They are probably going to have an increase in their symptoms, and as such, a corresponding need for adjusting treatment. This may require an increase in their existing medications or the addition of an ad hoc medication, or perhaps more frequent contact with their doctor or therapist.

Because travel and direct visitation is discouraged at the moment, virtual methods of communication should be used to speak with these patients. Such methods have long existed but haven’t been adopted in large numbers; this may be the impetus to finally make it happen. Using the telephone, FaceTime, Skype, WebEx, Zoom, and other means of videoconferencing should be feasible. As billing procedures are being adapted for this moment, there’s no reason why individuals shouldn’t be able to contact their mental health provider.

Substance abuse is also a condition vulnerable to the stress effects of this pandemic. This will prompt or tempt those to use substances that they’ve abused or turned to in the past as a way of self-medicating and assuaging their anxiety and worry.

Interestingly, people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and nonaffective and affective psychoses, seem to be less vulnerable to the stress-inducing effects of catastrophe. It’s possible that the pandemic could find its way into delusions or exacerbate symptoms, but somewhat paradoxically, people with serious mental illnesses often respond more calmly to crises than do individuals without them. As a result, the number of these patients requiring emergency room admission for possible exacerbation of symptoms is probably not going to be that much greater than normal.

How to Cope With an Unprecedented Situation

For the worried well and for the clinicians who have understandable fears about exposure, there are several things you can try to manage your anxiety. There are concentric circles of concern that you have to maintain. Think of it like the instructions on an airplane when, if there’s a drop in cabin pressure, you’re asked to apply your own oxygen mask first before placing one on your child. In the same way, you must first think about protecting yourself by limiting your exposure and monitoring your own physical state for any symptoms. But then you must be concerned about your family, your friends, and also society. This is a situation where the impulse and the ethos of worrying about your fellow persons—being your brother’s keeper—is imperative.

The epidemic has been successfully managed in some countries, like Singapore and China, which, once they got on top of it, were able to limit contagion in a very dramatic way. But these are authoritarian governments. The United States doesn’t work that way, which is what makes appealing to the principle of caring for others so crucial. You can protect yourself, but if other people aren’t also protected, it may not matter. You have to worry not just about yourself but about everyone else.

When it comes to stress management, I recommend not catastrophizing or watching the news media 24/7. Distract yourself with other work or recreational activities. Reach out and communicate—virtually, of course—with friends, family, and healthcare providers as needed. Staying in touch acts not just as a diversion but also as an outlet for assuaging your feelings, your sense of being in this alone, feeling isolated.

There are also cognitive reframing mechanisms you can employ. Consider that although this is bad, some countries have already gone through it. And we’ll get through it too. You’ll understandably ask yourself what it would mean if you were to be exposed. In most cases you can say, “I’m going to have the flu and symptoms that are not going to be pleasant, but I’ve had the flu or serious sickness before.”

Remember that there are already antiretroviral treatments being tested in clinical trials and showing efficacy. It’s good to know that before this pandemic ends, some of these treatments will probably be clinically applied, mostly to those who are severely affected and in intensive care.

Diagnose yourself. Monitor your state. Determine whether the stress is really having an impact on you. Is it affecting your sleep, appetite, concentration, mood? And if you do have a preexisting psychiatric condition, don’t feel afraid to reach out to your mental health provider. Understand that you’re going to be anxious, which may aggravate your symptoms and require an adjustment in your treatment. That’s okay. It’s to be expected and your provider should be available to help you.

Controlling this outbreak via the same epidemiologic infectious disease prevention guidance that works in authoritarian societies is not going to be applicable here because of the liberties that we experience in American society. What will determine our success is the belief that we’re in this together, that we’re going to help each other. We should be proud of that, as it shows how Americans and people around the world stand up in situations like this.

Let’s also note that even though everybody is affected and undergoing previously unimaginable levels of anticipated stress and dislocation, it’s the healthcare providers who are really on the frontlines. They’re under tremendous pressure to continue to perform heroically, at great risk to themselves. They deserve a real debt of gratitude.

We will get through this, but as we do, it will not end until we’ve undergone an extreme test of our character. I certainly hope and trust that we will be up to it.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Disclosure: Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Clintara; Intracellular Therapies. Received research grant from Alkermes; Biomarin; EnVivo/Forum; Genentech; Novartis/Novation; Sunovion. Patent: Repligen.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent explosion of innovations for the diagnosis and treatment of GI diseases makes it difficult to identify what will affect you today and what has implications for tomorrow.

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) cuts through the noise with quarterly updates featuring groundbreaking advances in GI endoscopy. Previously known as Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, TIGE is the newest member of the AGA journal family and illuminates the next generation of technologies in an easily accessible, online-only format. TIGE will continue to be led by Co-Editors-in-Chief Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and a hand-selected editorial board of leaders in GI endoscopy.

Check out the current issue of TIGE focused on how lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are changing GI endoscopy. The issue provides a comprehensive review on the current state of LAMS and best practices for using LAMS to optimize patient outcomes.

Discover TIGE at tigejournal.org.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The recent explosion of innovations for the diagnosis and treatment of GI diseases makes it difficult to identify what will affect you today and what has implications for tomorrow.

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) cuts through the noise with quarterly updates featuring groundbreaking advances in GI endoscopy. Previously known as Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, TIGE is the newest member of the AGA journal family and illuminates the next generation of technologies in an easily accessible, online-only format. TIGE will continue to be led by Co-Editors-in-Chief Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and a hand-selected editorial board of leaders in GI endoscopy.

Check out the current issue of TIGE focused on how lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are changing GI endoscopy. The issue provides a comprehensive review on the current state of LAMS and best practices for using LAMS to optimize patient outcomes.

Discover TIGE at tigejournal.org.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The recent explosion of innovations for the diagnosis and treatment of GI diseases makes it difficult to identify what will affect you today and what has implications for tomorrow.

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) cuts through the noise with quarterly updates featuring groundbreaking advances in GI endoscopy. Previously known as Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, TIGE is the newest member of the AGA journal family and illuminates the next generation of technologies in an easily accessible, online-only format. TIGE will continue to be led by Co-Editors-in-Chief Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and a hand-selected editorial board of leaders in GI endoscopy.

Check out the current issue of TIGE focused on how lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are changing GI endoscopy. The issue provides a comprehensive review on the current state of LAMS and best practices for using LAMS to optimize patient outcomes.

Discover TIGE at tigejournal.org.
 

ginews@gastro.org

Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”

The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.

The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.

In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.

“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.

However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.

Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”

The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.

The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.

In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.

“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.

However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.

Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”

The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.

The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.

In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.

“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.

However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 26, 2020, it’s hard to write or think of anything beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Those of you who are on the front lines of the battle may find it strange that I am just a bit envious. Having stepped back from clinical medicine nearly a decade ago, it is frustrating to feel that there is little I can do to help other than offering to venture into the grocery store to shop for friends and neighbors who feel more vulnerable than I do.

jacoblund/iStock/Getty Images

Here in Maine, we are blessed by geographic isolation that for the moment seems to have damped the surge from the metropolitan centers to our south. But, the virus is here and, as the state with the oldest population, we are beginning to be affected.

For nearly a century, we could count on the outhouses here in Maine would be stocked with outdated Sears Roebucks catalogs when toilet paper was in short supply. Many outhouses remain but Sears Roebucks and its catalogs have disappeared from the landscape. I take a little comfort in the learning that I’m not the only human on the planet who can envision the horror of a week or even a day without toilet paper.

So I am left to sit on the sidelines and watch how my fellow Mainers are coping with the anxiety, depression, and loneliness that come with the forced social isolation. It is pretty clear that walking outside has become the coping strategy of choice. On a usual March day the walkers comprise a skimpy mix of dog walkers and wannabe arctic explorers testing the weather-defying capabilities of their high-tech outerwear. But, to say the least, this is not a usual March and the number of walkers has surged bolstered by gym rats forced off their sweat-drenched ellipticals and treadmills.

This increase in outdoor activity is clearly perceptible even on an overcast day, but it is far less than one would expect given the magnitude of the disruption to everyone’s routines. But, when the sun comes out! The doors fly open and onto the sidewalks and quiet rural roads spill scores of people I haven’t seen for months and in some cases decades. One can almost hear John Denver singing “sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.” Everyone is smiling and waving to each other. It feels as though the community has, at least for a few hours, been able to throw off the burden of angst that the pandemic laid on us.

There has been a good bit of research about seasonal affective disorder, and I suspect that almost everyone has heard about the value of sunshine for depression. But it is unfortunate that the psychological benefits of just being outdoors – even on an overcast day – has gone pretty much unpublicized. As part of their marketing strategy, a local company that specializes in recreational clothing and gear is encouraging its customers to become “outsiders.” It may be that the pandemic will make more people realize the psychological benefits of being active outside. As physicians we should continue to encourage our patients to be more active and remind them that they don’t need to wait for a sunny day to do so.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

On March 26, 2020, it’s hard to write or think of anything beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Those of you who are on the front lines of the battle may find it strange that I am just a bit envious. Having stepped back from clinical medicine nearly a decade ago, it is frustrating to feel that there is little I can do to help other than offering to venture into the grocery store to shop for friends and neighbors who feel more vulnerable than I do.

jacoblund/iStock/Getty Images

Here in Maine, we are blessed by geographic isolation that for the moment seems to have damped the surge from the metropolitan centers to our south. But, the virus is here and, as the state with the oldest population, we are beginning to be affected.

For nearly a century, we could count on the outhouses here in Maine would be stocked with outdated Sears Roebucks catalogs when toilet paper was in short supply. Many outhouses remain but Sears Roebucks and its catalogs have disappeared from the landscape. I take a little comfort in the learning that I’m not the only human on the planet who can envision the horror of a week or even a day without toilet paper.

So I am left to sit on the sidelines and watch how my fellow Mainers are coping with the anxiety, depression, and loneliness that come with the forced social isolation. It is pretty clear that walking outside has become the coping strategy of choice. On a usual March day the walkers comprise a skimpy mix of dog walkers and wannabe arctic explorers testing the weather-defying capabilities of their high-tech outerwear. But, to say the least, this is not a usual March and the number of walkers has surged bolstered by gym rats forced off their sweat-drenched ellipticals and treadmills.

This increase in outdoor activity is clearly perceptible even on an overcast day, but it is far less than one would expect given the magnitude of the disruption to everyone’s routines. But, when the sun comes out! The doors fly open and onto the sidewalks and quiet rural roads spill scores of people I haven’t seen for months and in some cases decades. One can almost hear John Denver singing “sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.” Everyone is smiling and waving to each other. It feels as though the community has, at least for a few hours, been able to throw off the burden of angst that the pandemic laid on us.

There has been a good bit of research about seasonal affective disorder, and I suspect that almost everyone has heard about the value of sunshine for depression. But it is unfortunate that the psychological benefits of just being outdoors – even on an overcast day – has gone pretty much unpublicized. As part of their marketing strategy, a local company that specializes in recreational clothing and gear is encouraging its customers to become “outsiders.” It may be that the pandemic will make more people realize the psychological benefits of being active outside. As physicians we should continue to encourage our patients to be more active and remind them that they don’t need to wait for a sunny day to do so.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

On March 26, 2020, it’s hard to write or think of anything beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Those of you who are on the front lines of the battle may find it strange that I am just a bit envious. Having stepped back from clinical medicine nearly a decade ago, it is frustrating to feel that there is little I can do to help other than offering to venture into the grocery store to shop for friends and neighbors who feel more vulnerable than I do.

jacoblund/iStock/Getty Images

Here in Maine, we are blessed by geographic isolation that for the moment seems to have damped the surge from the metropolitan centers to our south. But, the virus is here and, as the state with the oldest population, we are beginning to be affected.

For nearly a century, we could count on the outhouses here in Maine would be stocked with outdated Sears Roebucks catalogs when toilet paper was in short supply. Many outhouses remain but Sears Roebucks and its catalogs have disappeared from the landscape. I take a little comfort in the learning that I’m not the only human on the planet who can envision the horror of a week or even a day without toilet paper.

So I am left to sit on the sidelines and watch how my fellow Mainers are coping with the anxiety, depression, and loneliness that come with the forced social isolation. It is pretty clear that walking outside has become the coping strategy of choice. On a usual March day the walkers comprise a skimpy mix of dog walkers and wannabe arctic explorers testing the weather-defying capabilities of their high-tech outerwear. But, to say the least, this is not a usual March and the number of walkers has surged bolstered by gym rats forced off their sweat-drenched ellipticals and treadmills.

This increase in outdoor activity is clearly perceptible even on an overcast day, but it is far less than one would expect given the magnitude of the disruption to everyone’s routines. But, when the sun comes out! The doors fly open and onto the sidewalks and quiet rural roads spill scores of people I haven’t seen for months and in some cases decades. One can almost hear John Denver singing “sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.” Everyone is smiling and waving to each other. It feels as though the community has, at least for a few hours, been able to throw off the burden of angst that the pandemic laid on us.

There has been a good bit of research about seasonal affective disorder, and I suspect that almost everyone has heard about the value of sunshine for depression. But it is unfortunate that the psychological benefits of just being outdoors – even on an overcast day – has gone pretty much unpublicized. As part of their marketing strategy, a local company that specializes in recreational clothing and gear is encouraging its customers to become “outsiders.” It may be that the pandemic will make more people realize the psychological benefits of being active outside. As physicians we should continue to encourage our patients to be more active and remind them that they don’t need to wait for a sunny day to do so.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.