Perspectives

I agree with Dr. Nasrallah’s clear description of the malign nature of the pre-authorization system, as described in his editorial “Pre-authorization is illegal, unethical, and adversely disrupts patient care” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. April 2020, p. 5,10-11). The doctor’s job is not to improve the bottom line of insurance companies by tailoring medication choices based on cost or pill quantity.

As an example of the latter, I was recently told by a pharmacist that I needed to call the insurer to justify why a patient was going from a prescription for #30 citalopram to #45 citalopram. The request had triggered a quantity limit. The pharmacist had explained to the insurer that more pills were required because the dosage was being lowered from 40 to 30 mg/d. Because there are no 30-mg tablets available, it made most sense for the patient to take one and a half 20-mg tablets, which totals 45 pills per month.

The insurer—probably a screener, not a pharmacist—would not accept that explanation and insisted that I call them myself. I bitterly resented how casually the insurer expected busy doctors to interrupt their clinical work to comply with arbitrary micromanagement of pill quantities! I’ve seldom seen such nonsense in more than 40 years of practice.

When doctors call these insurers, they are connected to a screener, but never a pharmacist. The screener asks a series of questions prompted by a computer. We give them verbal answers, but they don’t comprehend what they input into their system. The reasons we give to the screener may not even make it into the report that the screener passes on to the staff member who makes the decision. The doctor is not told what is in the report, or who is reviewing it. So much for transparency in this era that supposedly values it!

In any case, answering all the computer-prompted questions can take a long time. And time, as we know (but they do not), is not elastic.

Serious consequences may ensue if an insurer denies coverage for the doctor’s first choice. Many patients cannot afford to pay hundreds of extra dollars out of pocket. The insurer may ask the doctor to choose a different medication. Aside from the disrespect for the doctor’s decision implied by such a request, another problem is that the patient knows the new medication is his/her doctor’s second (or third) choice. Any positive placebo effect that may have existed before has now been lost. Most doctors would be glad to have a positive placebo effect augmenting the physiologic effects of the medication, especially when the patient is already feeling helpless or hopeless. These negative feelings would likely increase when the patient feels pressured into starting a medication that they know was their doctor’s second choice.

These are just a few reasons pre-authorization is a horrid system; Dr. Nasrallah covered many others in his editorial. The system, as currently structured, needs to be eliminated.

Arthur Mode, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Falls Church, Virginia

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Hooray for...

Hooray for Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-authorization! I worry, however, that he missed some important considerations.

He writes, “The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs.” But the welfare of the patient is exactly what is on their radar screens! If the patient dies, the insurance company profits, because it will not have to pay for treatment. This is like having a Red Sox employee manage the Yankees, except we are talking about human lives, not baseball games. Dr. Nasrallah asks (but does not answer), “How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company?” The answer: Physicians let them. Many physicians are paid by insurers directly or through work for clinics or hospitals. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And because employers often select the insurer, patients have no say.

Honesty is most important. Pre-authorization is a dishonest term, because pre-authorization actually is pre-denial. The term pre-authorization should be replaced by “pre-denial.” It is also fraudulent when insurance companies call themselves health care companies, because they only provide insurance, not health care. Similarly, the term “evidence-based medicine” is typically only an excuse that insurers use to refuse to cover the cost of treatment. In another scenario of Dr. Nasrallah’s patient with treatment-resistant depression who responded to modafinil, what if the evidence for using this medication was based on the patient’s psychiatric history alone, without any evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? That would not be “evidence-based” in the dishonest world of insurance. Evidence to insurers does not include what is evident in the patient’s response to a given treatment. 

What about amnesty, especially for physicians who work in the so-called pre-authorization denial business? Some even claim to be peers (ie, the “peer to peer reviews” they conduct) and insist they cannot be on speakerphone, so that their identity is kept secret from the patient. Not all of these “physicians” are incompetent. Not all of them have criminal minds or lack empathy. Some may have had exceptional circumstances leading them to such a profession, which Dr. Nasrallah correctly notes as felonious behavior. For these physicians, I think some kind of amnesty program would be appropriate, rather than prosecution.

John Jacobs, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Manchester, New Hampshire

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: I have just finished reading...

I have just finished reading Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-author­ization. I agree with everything he said, but I do have a couple of comments:

1. Many of our colleagues do not accept insurance because their practices operate on a cash basis. This seems to obviate the problem of pre-authorization, and suggests that if we truly want to get rid of pre-authorization, we should get rid of insurance.

2. In practices that do not accept insurance, some patients may be filing their own insurance claims. Do you have any information on this approach? Are patients able to apply pressure to their insurance companies? Do patients get frustrated with their insurance companies and pay cash, rather than trying to negotiate with their insurance companies?

Katherine Hankins, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Omaha, Nebraska

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Why not address...

Why not address the underlying (and actual) cause of the “pre-authorization” scam/scandal: the private health insurance industry.

Other countries in the western world have figured out how to provide guaranteed health care to their citizens without resorting to a costly insurance industry. This parasitic business suborns 10% to 20% of the health care bill while wasting our money on withholding health care deemed “not eligible” for patients who need it. Meanwhile, the executives who manage this insurance racket are paid enormous salaries not to deliver services.

Moreover, we reap a double loss to the health care system because hospitals must employ a building full of clerks to submit (and then, when rejected, re-submit) bills for reimbursement of hospital charges.

Franz Kafka would immediately grasp the despicable workings of this self-serving scheme.

David Link, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thanks to all my colleagues who commented on (and unanimously agreed with) my editorial. It is clearly one of the most outrageous hurdles that all psychiatric practitioners face every day.

For the sake of our patients who deserve optimal medical care (laboratory tests, procedures, and medications), insurance companies must be tightly regulated to avoid second-guessing the treating clinicians, and readily cover what is prescribed. Some patients who can afford it resort to paying out of pocket for privacy reasons or for rapid access to psychiatric care, and may or may not file for insurance coverage, but they will certainly receive what their psychiatrist deems appropriate after a direct evaluation.

I hope the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Asso­ciation will continue to forcefully pursue legislation to eliminate pre-authorization and restore some sanity to the critical process of good clinical care.

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neuroscience
Medical Director: Neuropsychiatry
Director, Schizophrenia and Neuropsychiatry Programs
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Cincinnati, Ohio
Professor Emeritus, Saint Louis University
St. Louis, Missouri

I agree with Dr. Nasrallah’s clear description of the malign nature of the pre-authorization system, as described in his editorial “Pre-authorization is illegal, unethical, and adversely disrupts patient care” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. April 2020, p. 5,10-11). The doctor’s job is not to improve the bottom line of insurance companies by tailoring medication choices based on cost or pill quantity.

As an example of the latter, I was recently told by a pharmacist that I needed to call the insurer to justify why a patient was going from a prescription for #30 citalopram to #45 citalopram. The request had triggered a quantity limit. The pharmacist had explained to the insurer that more pills were required because the dosage was being lowered from 40 to 30 mg/d. Because there are no 30-mg tablets available, it made most sense for the patient to take one and a half 20-mg tablets, which totals 45 pills per month.

The insurer—probably a screener, not a pharmacist—would not accept that explanation and insisted that I call them myself. I bitterly resented how casually the insurer expected busy doctors to interrupt their clinical work to comply with arbitrary micromanagement of pill quantities! I’ve seldom seen such nonsense in more than 40 years of practice.

When doctors call these insurers, they are connected to a screener, but never a pharmacist. The screener asks a series of questions prompted by a computer. We give them verbal answers, but they don’t comprehend what they input into their system. The reasons we give to the screener may not even make it into the report that the screener passes on to the staff member who makes the decision. The doctor is not told what is in the report, or who is reviewing it. So much for transparency in this era that supposedly values it!

In any case, answering all the computer-prompted questions can take a long time. And time, as we know (but they do not), is not elastic.

Serious consequences may ensue if an insurer denies coverage for the doctor’s first choice. Many patients cannot afford to pay hundreds of extra dollars out of pocket. The insurer may ask the doctor to choose a different medication. Aside from the disrespect for the doctor’s decision implied by such a request, another problem is that the patient knows the new medication is his/her doctor’s second (or third) choice. Any positive placebo effect that may have existed before has now been lost. Most doctors would be glad to have a positive placebo effect augmenting the physiologic effects of the medication, especially when the patient is already feeling helpless or hopeless. These negative feelings would likely increase when the patient feels pressured into starting a medication that they know was their doctor’s second choice.

These are just a few reasons pre-authorization is a horrid system; Dr. Nasrallah covered many others in his editorial. The system, as currently structured, needs to be eliminated.

Arthur Mode, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Falls Church, Virginia

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Hooray for...

Hooray for Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-authorization! I worry, however, that he missed some important considerations.

He writes, “The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs.” But the welfare of the patient is exactly what is on their radar screens! If the patient dies, the insurance company profits, because it will not have to pay for treatment. This is like having a Red Sox employee manage the Yankees, except we are talking about human lives, not baseball games. Dr. Nasrallah asks (but does not answer), “How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company?” The answer: Physicians let them. Many physicians are paid by insurers directly or through work for clinics or hospitals. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And because employers often select the insurer, patients have no say.

Honesty is most important. Pre-authorization is a dishonest term, because pre-authorization actually is pre-denial. The term pre-authorization should be replaced by “pre-denial.” It is also fraudulent when insurance companies call themselves health care companies, because they only provide insurance, not health care. Similarly, the term “evidence-based medicine” is typically only an excuse that insurers use to refuse to cover the cost of treatment. In another scenario of Dr. Nasrallah’s patient with treatment-resistant depression who responded to modafinil, what if the evidence for using this medication was based on the patient’s psychiatric history alone, without any evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? That would not be “evidence-based” in the dishonest world of insurance. Evidence to insurers does not include what is evident in the patient’s response to a given treatment. 

What about amnesty, especially for physicians who work in the so-called pre-authorization denial business? Some even claim to be peers (ie, the “peer to peer reviews” they conduct) and insist they cannot be on speakerphone, so that their identity is kept secret from the patient. Not all of these “physicians” are incompetent. Not all of them have criminal minds or lack empathy. Some may have had exceptional circumstances leading them to such a profession, which Dr. Nasrallah correctly notes as felonious behavior. For these physicians, I think some kind of amnesty program would be appropriate, rather than prosecution.

John Jacobs, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Manchester, New Hampshire

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: I have just finished reading...

I have just finished reading Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-author­ization. I agree with everything he said, but I do have a couple of comments:

1. Many of our colleagues do not accept insurance because their practices operate on a cash basis. This seems to obviate the problem of pre-authorization, and suggests that if we truly want to get rid of pre-authorization, we should get rid of insurance.

2. In practices that do not accept insurance, some patients may be filing their own insurance claims. Do you have any information on this approach? Are patients able to apply pressure to their insurance companies? Do patients get frustrated with their insurance companies and pay cash, rather than trying to negotiate with their insurance companies?

Katherine Hankins, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Omaha, Nebraska

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Why not address...

Why not address the underlying (and actual) cause of the “pre-authorization” scam/scandal: the private health insurance industry.

Other countries in the western world have figured out how to provide guaranteed health care to their citizens without resorting to a costly insurance industry. This parasitic business suborns 10% to 20% of the health care bill while wasting our money on withholding health care deemed “not eligible” for patients who need it. Meanwhile, the executives who manage this insurance racket are paid enormous salaries not to deliver services.

Moreover, we reap a double loss to the health care system because hospitals must employ a building full of clerks to submit (and then, when rejected, re-submit) bills for reimbursement of hospital charges.

Franz Kafka would immediately grasp the despicable workings of this self-serving scheme.

David Link, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thanks to all my colleagues who commented on (and unanimously agreed with) my editorial. It is clearly one of the most outrageous hurdles that all psychiatric practitioners face every day.

For the sake of our patients who deserve optimal medical care (laboratory tests, procedures, and medications), insurance companies must be tightly regulated to avoid second-guessing the treating clinicians, and readily cover what is prescribed. Some patients who can afford it resort to paying out of pocket for privacy reasons or for rapid access to psychiatric care, and may or may not file for insurance coverage, but they will certainly receive what their psychiatrist deems appropriate after a direct evaluation.

I hope the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Asso­ciation will continue to forcefully pursue legislation to eliminate pre-authorization and restore some sanity to the critical process of good clinical care.

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neuroscience
Medical Director: Neuropsychiatry
Director, Schizophrenia and Neuropsychiatry Programs
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Cincinnati, Ohio
Professor Emeritus, Saint Louis University
St. Louis, Missouri

I agree with Dr. Nasrallah’s clear description of the malign nature of the pre-authorization system, as described in his editorial “Pre-authorization is illegal, unethical, and adversely disrupts patient care” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. April 2020, p. 5,10-11). The doctor’s job is not to improve the bottom line of insurance companies by tailoring medication choices based on cost or pill quantity.

As an example of the latter, I was recently told by a pharmacist that I needed to call the insurer to justify why a patient was going from a prescription for #30 citalopram to #45 citalopram. The request had triggered a quantity limit. The pharmacist had explained to the insurer that more pills were required because the dosage was being lowered from 40 to 30 mg/d. Because there are no 30-mg tablets available, it made most sense for the patient to take one and a half 20-mg tablets, which totals 45 pills per month.

The insurer—probably a screener, not a pharmacist—would not accept that explanation and insisted that I call them myself. I bitterly resented how casually the insurer expected busy doctors to interrupt their clinical work to comply with arbitrary micromanagement of pill quantities! I’ve seldom seen such nonsense in more than 40 years of practice.

When doctors call these insurers, they are connected to a screener, but never a pharmacist. The screener asks a series of questions prompted by a computer. We give them verbal answers, but they don’t comprehend what they input into their system. The reasons we give to the screener may not even make it into the report that the screener passes on to the staff member who makes the decision. The doctor is not told what is in the report, or who is reviewing it. So much for transparency in this era that supposedly values it!

In any case, answering all the computer-prompted questions can take a long time. And time, as we know (but they do not), is not elastic.

Serious consequences may ensue if an insurer denies coverage for the doctor’s first choice. Many patients cannot afford to pay hundreds of extra dollars out of pocket. The insurer may ask the doctor to choose a different medication. Aside from the disrespect for the doctor’s decision implied by such a request, another problem is that the patient knows the new medication is his/her doctor’s second (or third) choice. Any positive placebo effect that may have existed before has now been lost. Most doctors would be glad to have a positive placebo effect augmenting the physiologic effects of the medication, especially when the patient is already feeling helpless or hopeless. These negative feelings would likely increase when the patient feels pressured into starting a medication that they know was their doctor’s second choice.

These are just a few reasons pre-authorization is a horrid system; Dr. Nasrallah covered many others in his editorial. The system, as currently structured, needs to be eliminated.

Arthur Mode, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Falls Church, Virginia

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Hooray for...

Hooray for Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-authorization! I worry, however, that he missed some important considerations.

He writes, “The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs.” But the welfare of the patient is exactly what is on their radar screens! If the patient dies, the insurance company profits, because it will not have to pay for treatment. This is like having a Red Sox employee manage the Yankees, except we are talking about human lives, not baseball games. Dr. Nasrallah asks (but does not answer), “How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company?” The answer: Physicians let them. Many physicians are paid by insurers directly or through work for clinics or hospitals. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And because employers often select the insurer, patients have no say.

Honesty is most important. Pre-authorization is a dishonest term, because pre-authorization actually is pre-denial. The term pre-authorization should be replaced by “pre-denial.” It is also fraudulent when insurance companies call themselves health care companies, because they only provide insurance, not health care. Similarly, the term “evidence-based medicine” is typically only an excuse that insurers use to refuse to cover the cost of treatment. In another scenario of Dr. Nasrallah’s patient with treatment-resistant depression who responded to modafinil, what if the evidence for using this medication was based on the patient’s psychiatric history alone, without any evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? That would not be “evidence-based” in the dishonest world of insurance. Evidence to insurers does not include what is evident in the patient’s response to a given treatment. 

What about amnesty, especially for physicians who work in the so-called pre-authorization denial business? Some even claim to be peers (ie, the “peer to peer reviews” they conduct) and insist they cannot be on speakerphone, so that their identity is kept secret from the patient. Not all of these “physicians” are incompetent. Not all of them have criminal minds or lack empathy. Some may have had exceptional circumstances leading them to such a profession, which Dr. Nasrallah correctly notes as felonious behavior. For these physicians, I think some kind of amnesty program would be appropriate, rather than prosecution.

John Jacobs, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Manchester, New Hampshire

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: I have just finished reading...

I have just finished reading Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about pre-author­ization. I agree with everything he said, but I do have a couple of comments:

1. Many of our colleagues do not accept insurance because their practices operate on a cash basis. This seems to obviate the problem of pre-authorization, and suggests that if we truly want to get rid of pre-authorization, we should get rid of insurance.

2. In practices that do not accept insurance, some patients may be filing their own insurance claims. Do you have any information on this approach? Are patients able to apply pressure to their insurance companies? Do patients get frustrated with their insurance companies and pay cash, rather than trying to negotiate with their insurance companies?

Katherine Hankins, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Omaha, Nebraska

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Why not address...

Why not address the underlying (and actual) cause of the “pre-authorization” scam/scandal: the private health insurance industry.

Other countries in the western world have figured out how to provide guaranteed health care to their citizens without resorting to a costly insurance industry. This parasitic business suborns 10% to 20% of the health care bill while wasting our money on withholding health care deemed “not eligible” for patients who need it. Meanwhile, the executives who manage this insurance racket are paid enormous salaries not to deliver services.

Moreover, we reap a double loss to the health care system because hospitals must employ a building full of clerks to submit (and then, when rejected, re-submit) bills for reimbursement of hospital charges.

Franz Kafka would immediately grasp the despicable workings of this self-serving scheme.

David Link, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Continue to: Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thanks to all my colleagues who commented on (and unanimously agreed with) my editorial. It is clearly one of the most outrageous hurdles that all psychiatric practitioners face every day.

For the sake of our patients who deserve optimal medical care (laboratory tests, procedures, and medications), insurance companies must be tightly regulated to avoid second-guessing the treating clinicians, and readily cover what is prescribed. Some patients who can afford it resort to paying out of pocket for privacy reasons or for rapid access to psychiatric care, and may or may not file for insurance coverage, but they will certainly receive what their psychiatrist deems appropriate after a direct evaluation.

I hope the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Asso­ciation will continue to forcefully pursue legislation to eliminate pre-authorization and restore some sanity to the critical process of good clinical care.

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neuroscience
Medical Director: Neuropsychiatry
Director, Schizophrenia and Neuropsychiatry Programs
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Cincinnati, Ohio
Professor Emeritus, Saint Louis University
St. Louis, Missouri

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

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 disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

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 disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

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 disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic.¹ As of mid-May 2020, the illness had claimed more than 316,000 lives worldwide.² The main symptoms of the respiratory illness caused by COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. However, disorders of consciousness also have been reported, especially in patients who succumb to the illness.³ In fact, approximately one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients experience neurologic symptoms.⁴ Although the most common of these symptoms are dizziness, headache, and loss of smell and taste, patients with more severe cases can experience acute cerebrovascular diseases and impaired consciousness.⁴ As such, psychiatrists assessing confusion should include COVID-19 in their differential diagnosis as a potential cause of altered mental status.

How COVID-19 might affect the CNS

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, COVID-19 also may have neurotropic potential. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a beta-coronavirus. Two other highly pathogenic coronaviruses—SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are also beta-coronaviruses, and both have been reported to invade the CNS in some patients.⁵ These viruses are thought to invade cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors.⁶ These receptors are located on the epithelial cells of the respiratory and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, but also are expressed in certain areas of the brain.⁷ Transmission to the brain could occur through various routes. However, the clinical symptom of loss of smell and taste hints to possible transmission of the virus from nasal cells to the olfactory bulb via trans-synaptic transmission in olfactory neurons.^5,8,9

Immune injury via systemic inflammation is another proposed mechanism for nervous system damage.^8,9 This has been described as “cytokine storm syndrome” and provides support to the role of immuno­therapy in COVID-19 patients.¹⁰ Such inflammation has been long hypothesized as a contributor to psychiatric illnesses, especially neurocognitive disorders.^11,12

Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19

Disorders of consciousness were identified early as a symptom of COVID-19.³ Subsequent studies and case reports have confirmed impaired consciousness as a possible symptom of COVID-19.⁴ The first case of encephalitis secondary to COVID-19 was reported by Chinese media on March 5, 2020 in Beijing, China.¹³ Subsequently, cases of encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 have been reported in the United States. A 74-year-old man in Boca Raton, Florida who had recently returned from the Netherlands presented with altered mental status and was confirmed positive for COVID-19.¹⁴ A female airline worker in her late 50s who presented with altered mental status and tested positive for COVID-19 was found on imaging to have acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.¹⁵ There also have been cases of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who initially presented with complaints of seizures¹⁶ and Guillain-Barré syndrome.¹⁷ As such, neuro­psychiatric complications of COVID-19 are being increasingly recognized and are important to consider during psychiatric assessments.

Consider COVID-19 when assessing altered mental status

Psychiatrists are often consulted to assess patients with impaired consciousness, mental status changes, or confusion. Acute changes to mentation raise concern for delirium. In fact, delirium should always be ruled out when assessing new psychiatric symptoms. The astute psychiatrist is aware of the myriad of medical contributors to delirium. However, because knowledge of COVID-19 is in its infancy, it can be easy to overlook this virus as a potential contributor to delirium. Even patients whose confusion seems to be more in line with a major neurocognitive disorder should be evaluated for COVID-19, because the sudden onset of cognitive impairment may be due to hypoxia, inflammatory damage, or cerebrovascular changes secondary to infection with the virus or its respiratory complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).¹⁸

The most obvious clues to the possible presence of COVID-19 in a patient who is confused would be fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Because ACE2 receptors are also located in the GI tract, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea also are possible. However, patients who are confused may be poor historians, demonstrating behavioral symptoms that might make physical assessments challenging, or simply may be pre- or asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Hence, a thorough review of the patient’s history and collateral information is invaluable. A recent history of travel or contact with COVID-19–positive individuals should raise suspicion for viral infection. A patient who mentions a loss of taste or smell would also alert the psychiatrist to the possibility of COVID-19. A patient might not directly state this information, but may mention that he/she has been eating less or has not been disturbed by odors. Neuroimaging can be useful because patients with severe cases are at increased risk for acute cerebrovascular diseases.⁴ Also, ordering a chest CT may prove helpful because this testing is highly sensitive for COVID-19.¹⁹ If there is sufficient clinical evidence to suspect viral infection, testing for COVID-19 should be performed immediately.

It is important to be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19 infection in patients who present with confusion. Because the virus is highly contagious, the threshold for COVID-19 testing should be low. Viral infection in patients can manifest in ways other than classic respiratory symptoms. Psychiatrists should be aware of COVID-19’s potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms. When assessing confusion in any setting, the clinical and historical clues for COVID-19 should be kept in mind. This will allow patients with COVID-19 to be quickly diagnosed to initiate appropriate management and minimize progression of the illness. Additionally, this will allow for efficient quarantine of the patient to prevent the spread of the virus to others. As such, psychiatrists can play an important role in containing this virus and resolving the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Although primarily considered a respiratory illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also may have the potential to invade the CNS and cause neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as impaired consciousness, encephalitis, or a loss of taste or smell. When assessing a patient who presents with confusion, be vigilant for the possibility of COVID-19.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatry Association. APA coronavirus resources. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/covid-19-coronavirus#psych.
• Troyer EA, Kohn JN, Hong S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;S0889-1591(20)30489-X. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027.

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

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

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

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

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

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

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.¹ Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.

However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
 

Airborne vs. droplet transmission

According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.² In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.³ It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.

We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.

For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.⁴ The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
 

Universal masking: Risks and benefits

The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.⁵ The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.

As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.⁶ On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.⁵ Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.⁷

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.⁸ Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.^9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.¹²

Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
 

Efficacy of various types of masks

With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.¹³

N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.^14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.¹⁶

On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.¹⁷ Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.¹⁴

In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.¹⁸ 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.¹⁹

Ongoing issues

WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.²⁰ In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.²⁰ In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. ²¹

The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.²² A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.²³ This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
 

Reuse, extended use, and sterilization

Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.^24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing^26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”

It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.²⁷ This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.

In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.²⁸ Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.²⁹ Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.³⁰

Conclusion

A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.³¹ Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.

2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.

3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.

4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.

5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.

6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.

7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.

8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.

9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.

10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.

11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.

12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.

13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.

15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.

16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.

17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.

18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.

19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.

20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.

21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.

22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.

23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.

24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.

25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.

26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.

28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.

29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar. 

30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.

31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.

Dr. Tishler is Senior Vice President of Medical Services for Commonwealth Care Alliance, Boston, MA. She is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management.

Just as we were moving toward remote work in the face of COVID-19, a nonmedical colleague said to me, “I’ve never really seen a doctor in a crisis; you’re so calm.” I answered with, “Thank you. This is what our training is for.”

Let’s face it. At this point in my career, I’m not really on the front lines. I’m not running into ICU rooms, proning people with COVID-19 to stave off the need for a ventilator. I’m not holding up my iPad to enable a Zoom family conference. I’m not a caregiver in a COVID-19 isolation and recovery center for people experiencing homelessness. I’m not a member of anyone’s field team, continuing to provide home care in high-risk settings. Nope. My job now is to take care of the caregivers on the front lines who are doing all that—and the people who are supporting the caregivers doing all that. And in supporting our frontline clinicians and staff, I’m using some of the skills that I’ve gained from the relatively short time I’ve been a physician leader, but many more from the long years of being a clinician.

Late in January, I had a meeting with our chief medical officer. As our meeting was ending, I said to him, “You might think this is silly, but we need to start thinking about this new coronavirus and how it will impact our patients and our staff. I think we’ve probably got only a short time before we see a case here.” Leadership agreed, and we started our clinical Coronavirus Task Force that afternoon. Our executive leadership supported us, with consistent messaging that our organization would listen to the science and that the health of our members and employees was paramount.

Our timing and planning turned out to be correct. The first coronavirus case in Massachusetts appeared not even a week later. The infamous Biogen meeting took place late in February. By March 13, our entire workforce of more than 1000 people was at home. By March 24, we had retooled our integrated complex care organization to ensure that our most at-risk patients were still getting the home care they needed and that our staff were appropriately protected when they went into those homes. After years of debating about virtual care—telemedicine—we embraced it. As we worried deeply that our patients would be impacted by this virus in terrible ways—they are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, poor, and quite sick—we discovered a level of resilience among many people that gave us great satisfaction and hope.

Over these past weeks, that Task Force has grown to become our Command Center. It’s grown from a group that was thinking about masks and hand hygiene (still important!) to a 10+ workstream, technology-enabled, working group that breaks down silos and solves problems in real time. We have made more than 1000 home visits, preserving employee health and PPE. We use dashboards to help us see trends and act appropriately. We add streams and remove them as needed. We use research (where it exists) and case studies to help inform our decisions.

When I was thinking about organizing this group and wondering how I was going to drink daily from a firehose, I heard in my head the voice of my very first resident during my internship. She said, “Present the patient by telling us the events of yesterday, followed by data—exam, vitals, and labs. Then, tell us what you need help with and your plans for tomorrow.” Suddenly, it seemed just that simple. I did know how to do this. We started what we called “rapid rounds,” and each day, each stream tells us what they’ve done, what data they have collected—that might be the number of patients seen in the field, the number of masks needed, or the number of our patients who are ill—what they need from the other members of the group, and what their plans are for tomorrow.

Working together to meet the challenges presented by the pandemic has been extraordinary. We see, every day, the power of a dedicated, diverse group of caring clinicians and nonclinicians to take a good idea and make it better. Over these past weeks, my colleagues have come up with amazing ideas that have helped us to provide excellent care for our members and for our staff. Like the best of medicine, it is science, art, and a lot of heart. New ideas abound. Many of these ideas will survive the lockdown. We have a weekly webinar to update hundreds of viewers on the ever-changing medicine and ever-changing processes related to COVID-19 as we learn more. We have developed ways to ensure people who are at the end of their lives can make appropriate choices for their goals of care. We have found ways to share, use, reuse, and decontaminate PPE. We have ensured that personal care needs for disabled members are met. We’ve informed the organization and worked closely with our Commonwealth. Along the way, we’ve become a tight team, sharing daily bright spots and some sad stories, new baby chicks and knitting projects, with pets and children making welcome cameos.

Yes, this is what we trained for. Not for a global pandemic, of course. But to be able to make sound, well-informed decisions with the best information possible, given the circumstances. Once those decisions are made, we need to share them, communicate them, and support our patients and each other. We need to acknowledge when we misstep and reorganize to be better next time. If one solution doesn’t work, we must go forward and try another. In the midst of horrible times, there is the opportunity, every day, for medicine to be at its very best.

Dr. Tishler is Senior Vice President of Medical Services for Commonwealth Care Alliance, Boston, MA. She is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management.

Just as we were moving toward remote work in the face of COVID-19, a nonmedical colleague said to me, “I’ve never really seen a doctor in a crisis; you’re so calm.” I answered with, “Thank you. This is what our training is for.”

Let’s face it. At this point in my career, I’m not really on the front lines. I’m not running into ICU rooms, proning people with COVID-19 to stave off the need for a ventilator. I’m not holding up my iPad to enable a Zoom family conference. I’m not a caregiver in a COVID-19 isolation and recovery center for people experiencing homelessness. I’m not a member of anyone’s field team, continuing to provide home care in high-risk settings. Nope. My job now is to take care of the caregivers on the front lines who are doing all that—and the people who are supporting the caregivers doing all that. And in supporting our frontline clinicians and staff, I’m using some of the skills that I’ve gained from the relatively short time I’ve been a physician leader, but many more from the long years of being a clinician.

Late in January, I had a meeting with our chief medical officer. As our meeting was ending, I said to him, “You might think this is silly, but we need to start thinking about this new coronavirus and how it will impact our patients and our staff. I think we’ve probably got only a short time before we see a case here.” Leadership agreed, and we started our clinical Coronavirus Task Force that afternoon. Our executive leadership supported us, with consistent messaging that our organization would listen to the science and that the health of our members and employees was paramount.

Our timing and planning turned out to be correct. The first coronavirus case in Massachusetts appeared not even a week later. The infamous Biogen meeting took place late in February. By March 13, our entire workforce of more than 1000 people was at home. By March 24, we had retooled our integrated complex care organization to ensure that our most at-risk patients were still getting the home care they needed and that our staff were appropriately protected when they went into those homes. After years of debating about virtual care—telemedicine—we embraced it. As we worried deeply that our patients would be impacted by this virus in terrible ways—they are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, poor, and quite sick—we discovered a level of resilience among many people that gave us great satisfaction and hope.

Over these past weeks, that Task Force has grown to become our Command Center. It’s grown from a group that was thinking about masks and hand hygiene (still important!) to a 10+ workstream, technology-enabled, working group that breaks down silos and solves problems in real time. We have made more than 1000 home visits, preserving employee health and PPE. We use dashboards to help us see trends and act appropriately. We add streams and remove them as needed. We use research (where it exists) and case studies to help inform our decisions.

When I was thinking about organizing this group and wondering how I was going to drink daily from a firehose, I heard in my head the voice of my very first resident during my internship. She said, “Present the patient by telling us the events of yesterday, followed by data—exam, vitals, and labs. Then, tell us what you need help with and your plans for tomorrow.” Suddenly, it seemed just that simple. I did know how to do this. We started what we called “rapid rounds,” and each day, each stream tells us what they’ve done, what data they have collected—that might be the number of patients seen in the field, the number of masks needed, or the number of our patients who are ill—what they need from the other members of the group, and what their plans are for tomorrow.

Working together to meet the challenges presented by the pandemic has been extraordinary. We see, every day, the power of a dedicated, diverse group of caring clinicians and nonclinicians to take a good idea and make it better. Over these past weeks, my colleagues have come up with amazing ideas that have helped us to provide excellent care for our members and for our staff. Like the best of medicine, it is science, art, and a lot of heart. New ideas abound. Many of these ideas will survive the lockdown. We have a weekly webinar to update hundreds of viewers on the ever-changing medicine and ever-changing processes related to COVID-19 as we learn more. We have developed ways to ensure people who are at the end of their lives can make appropriate choices for their goals of care. We have found ways to share, use, reuse, and decontaminate PPE. We have ensured that personal care needs for disabled members are met. We’ve informed the organization and worked closely with our Commonwealth. Along the way, we’ve become a tight team, sharing daily bright spots and some sad stories, new baby chicks and knitting projects, with pets and children making welcome cameos.

Yes, this is what we trained for. Not for a global pandemic, of course. But to be able to make sound, well-informed decisions with the best information possible, given the circumstances. Once those decisions are made, we need to share them, communicate them, and support our patients and each other. We need to acknowledge when we misstep and reorganize to be better next time. If one solution doesn’t work, we must go forward and try another. In the midst of horrible times, there is the opportunity, every day, for medicine to be at its very best.

Dr. Tishler is Senior Vice President of Medical Services for Commonwealth Care Alliance, Boston, MA. She is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management.

Just as we were moving toward remote work in the face of COVID-19, a nonmedical colleague said to me, “I’ve never really seen a doctor in a crisis; you’re so calm.” I answered with, “Thank you. This is what our training is for.”

Let’s face it. At this point in my career, I’m not really on the front lines. I’m not running into ICU rooms, proning people with COVID-19 to stave off the need for a ventilator. I’m not holding up my iPad to enable a Zoom family conference. I’m not a caregiver in a COVID-19 isolation and recovery center for people experiencing homelessness. I’m not a member of anyone’s field team, continuing to provide home care in high-risk settings. Nope. My job now is to take care of the caregivers on the front lines who are doing all that—and the people who are supporting the caregivers doing all that. And in supporting our frontline clinicians and staff, I’m using some of the skills that I’ve gained from the relatively short time I’ve been a physician leader, but many more from the long years of being a clinician.

Late in January, I had a meeting with our chief medical officer. As our meeting was ending, I said to him, “You might think this is silly, but we need to start thinking about this new coronavirus and how it will impact our patients and our staff. I think we’ve probably got only a short time before we see a case here.” Leadership agreed, and we started our clinical Coronavirus Task Force that afternoon. Our executive leadership supported us, with consistent messaging that our organization would listen to the science and that the health of our members and employees was paramount.

Our timing and planning turned out to be correct. The first coronavirus case in Massachusetts appeared not even a week later. The infamous Biogen meeting took place late in February. By March 13, our entire workforce of more than 1000 people was at home. By March 24, we had retooled our integrated complex care organization to ensure that our most at-risk patients were still getting the home care they needed and that our staff were appropriately protected when they went into those homes. After years of debating about virtual care—telemedicine—we embraced it. As we worried deeply that our patients would be impacted by this virus in terrible ways—they are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, poor, and quite sick—we discovered a level of resilience among many people that gave us great satisfaction and hope.

Over these past weeks, that Task Force has grown to become our Command Center. It’s grown from a group that was thinking about masks and hand hygiene (still important!) to a 10+ workstream, technology-enabled, working group that breaks down silos and solves problems in real time. We have made more than 1000 home visits, preserving employee health and PPE. We use dashboards to help us see trends and act appropriately. We add streams and remove them as needed. We use research (where it exists) and case studies to help inform our decisions.

When I was thinking about organizing this group and wondering how I was going to drink daily from a firehose, I heard in my head the voice of my very first resident during my internship. She said, “Present the patient by telling us the events of yesterday, followed by data—exam, vitals, and labs. Then, tell us what you need help with and your plans for tomorrow.” Suddenly, it seemed just that simple. I did know how to do this. We started what we called “rapid rounds,” and each day, each stream tells us what they’ve done, what data they have collected—that might be the number of patients seen in the field, the number of masks needed, or the number of our patients who are ill—what they need from the other members of the group, and what their plans are for tomorrow.

Working together to meet the challenges presented by the pandemic has been extraordinary. We see, every day, the power of a dedicated, diverse group of caring clinicians and nonclinicians to take a good idea and make it better. Over these past weeks, my colleagues have come up with amazing ideas that have helped us to provide excellent care for our members and for our staff. Like the best of medicine, it is science, art, and a lot of heart. New ideas abound. Many of these ideas will survive the lockdown. We have a weekly webinar to update hundreds of viewers on the ever-changing medicine and ever-changing processes related to COVID-19 as we learn more. We have developed ways to ensure people who are at the end of their lives can make appropriate choices for their goals of care. We have found ways to share, use, reuse, and decontaminate PPE. We have ensured that personal care needs for disabled members are met. We’ve informed the organization and worked closely with our Commonwealth. Along the way, we’ve become a tight team, sharing daily bright spots and some sad stories, new baby chicks and knitting projects, with pets and children making welcome cameos.

Yes, this is what we trained for. Not for a global pandemic, of course. But to be able to make sound, well-informed decisions with the best information possible, given the circumstances. Once those decisions are made, we need to share them, communicate them, and support our patients and each other. We need to acknowledge when we misstep and reorganize to be better next time. If one solution doesn’t work, we must go forward and try another. In the midst of horrible times, there is the opportunity, every day, for medicine to be at its very best.

From the ash of our post “coron-apocalyptic” world, we emerge. It’s back to work, to life in a new normal. Patients are still scarce and scared, as are some doctors. Queues of patients wait to clear security and enter the sterile area at every medical office. Water bottles are allowed, fevers and visitors are not. Those who fail clearance or who are afraid to be seen in person must be treated virtually. In this context, virtually means by telephone or video, yet, aptly, it also means “nearly or almost,” as in we can nearly or almost treat them these ways. We’ve emerged safely, but we’ve lost sensibility. Because of this, what’s important in the doctor-patient relationships will drift a bit. Clinical acumen and technical skill won’t be enough. Successful practices will also have grace.

Hans Gerber/CC BY-SA 4.0

If your image of grace is Audrey Hepburn gliding along Fifth Avenue in a long black dress and elbow-length gloves, you’re in the right place. Ms. Hepburn embodied elegance and decorum and there are lessons to be drawn from her. Piling your hair high and donning oversized sunglasses along with your face mask would be to miss the point here though. Ms. Hepburn dressed exquisitely, yes, but her grace came from what wearing a difficult-to-walk-in dress meant to us, not to her. Appearance, self-control, and warmth are what made her charismatic.

To appear urbane requires effort; it’s the effort that we appreciate in someone who is graceful. When you’re thoughtful about how you look, you plan ahead, you work to look polished. In effect, you’re saying: “As my patient, you’re important enough for me to be well dressed.” It is a visible signal of all the unobservable work you’ve done to care for them. This is more critical now that our faces are covered and concern for infection means wearing shabby hospital scrubs rather than shirt and tie.

Effort is also required for telephone and video visits. In them, our doctor-patient connection is diminished – no matter how high definition, it’s a virtual affair. Ms. Hepburn would no doubt take the time to ensure she appeared professional, well lit, with a pleasing background. She’d plan for the call to be done in a quiet location and without distraction.

Whether in person or by phone, grace, as Ms. Hepburn demonstrated, is physical awareness and body control. She would often be completely still when someone is speaking, showing a countenance of warmth. She’d pause after the other person completed a thought and before replying. In doing so, she conveyed that she was present and engaged in what was being said. It is that confidence and ease of manner we perceived as grace.

I thought about this the other day during a mixed clinic of telephone and face-to-face visits. I had on my wrinkle-free scrubs (I could do better). I was listening to a patient describe all possible triggers for her hand dermatitis. My urge to interrupt grew with each paragraph of her storytelling. “Be patient,” I thought, “be at ease with her rambling. ... When she stops, thank her as if you were looking her in the eye acknowledging how interesting her observations were.” This is not just good manners, it’s the essence of grace: The art of showing how important others are to you.

Our world needs grace more than ever and what better place to start but with us. In pleasing, assisting, and honoring them, our patients can be reassured that we can and will care for them. Make Ms. Hepburn proud.

“For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone.” – Audrey Hepburn

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He has no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

From the ash of our post “coron-apocalyptic” world, we emerge. It’s back to work, to life in a new normal. Patients are still scarce and scared, as are some doctors. Queues of patients wait to clear security and enter the sterile area at every medical office. Water bottles are allowed, fevers and visitors are not. Those who fail clearance or who are afraid to be seen in person must be treated virtually. In this context, virtually means by telephone or video, yet, aptly, it also means “nearly or almost,” as in we can nearly or almost treat them these ways. We’ve emerged safely, but we’ve lost sensibility. Because of this, what’s important in the doctor-patient relationships will drift a bit. Clinical acumen and technical skill won’t be enough. Successful practices will also have grace.

Hans Gerber/CC BY-SA 4.0

If your image of grace is Audrey Hepburn gliding along Fifth Avenue in a long black dress and elbow-length gloves, you’re in the right place. Ms. Hepburn embodied elegance and decorum and there are lessons to be drawn from her. Piling your hair high and donning oversized sunglasses along with your face mask would be to miss the point here though. Ms. Hepburn dressed exquisitely, yes, but her grace came from what wearing a difficult-to-walk-in dress meant to us, not to her. Appearance, self-control, and warmth are what made her charismatic.

To appear urbane requires effort; it’s the effort that we appreciate in someone who is graceful. When you’re thoughtful about how you look, you plan ahead, you work to look polished. In effect, you’re saying: “As my patient, you’re important enough for me to be well dressed.” It is a visible signal of all the unobservable work you’ve done to care for them. This is more critical now that our faces are covered and concern for infection means wearing shabby hospital scrubs rather than shirt and tie.

Effort is also required for telephone and video visits. In them, our doctor-patient connection is diminished – no matter how high definition, it’s a virtual affair. Ms. Hepburn would no doubt take the time to ensure she appeared professional, well lit, with a pleasing background. She’d plan for the call to be done in a quiet location and without distraction.

Whether in person or by phone, grace, as Ms. Hepburn demonstrated, is physical awareness and body control. She would often be completely still when someone is speaking, showing a countenance of warmth. She’d pause after the other person completed a thought and before replying. In doing so, she conveyed that she was present and engaged in what was being said. It is that confidence and ease of manner we perceived as grace.

I thought about this the other day during a mixed clinic of telephone and face-to-face visits. I had on my wrinkle-free scrubs (I could do better). I was listening to a patient describe all possible triggers for her hand dermatitis. My urge to interrupt grew with each paragraph of her storytelling. “Be patient,” I thought, “be at ease with her rambling. ... When she stops, thank her as if you were looking her in the eye acknowledging how interesting her observations were.” This is not just good manners, it’s the essence of grace: The art of showing how important others are to you.

Our world needs grace more than ever and what better place to start but with us. In pleasing, assisting, and honoring them, our patients can be reassured that we can and will care for them. Make Ms. Hepburn proud.

“For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone.” – Audrey Hepburn

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He has no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

From the ash of our post “coron-apocalyptic” world, we emerge. It’s back to work, to life in a new normal. Patients are still scarce and scared, as are some doctors. Queues of patients wait to clear security and enter the sterile area at every medical office. Water bottles are allowed, fevers and visitors are not. Those who fail clearance or who are afraid to be seen in person must be treated virtually. In this context, virtually means by telephone or video, yet, aptly, it also means “nearly or almost,” as in we can nearly or almost treat them these ways. We’ve emerged safely, but we’ve lost sensibility. Because of this, what’s important in the doctor-patient relationships will drift a bit. Clinical acumen and technical skill won’t be enough. Successful practices will also have grace.

Hans Gerber/CC BY-SA 4.0

If your image of grace is Audrey Hepburn gliding along Fifth Avenue in a long black dress and elbow-length gloves, you’re in the right place. Ms. Hepburn embodied elegance and decorum and there are lessons to be drawn from her. Piling your hair high and donning oversized sunglasses along with your face mask would be to miss the point here though. Ms. Hepburn dressed exquisitely, yes, but her grace came from what wearing a difficult-to-walk-in dress meant to us, not to her. Appearance, self-control, and warmth are what made her charismatic.

To appear urbane requires effort; it’s the effort that we appreciate in someone who is graceful. When you’re thoughtful about how you look, you plan ahead, you work to look polished. In effect, you’re saying: “As my patient, you’re important enough for me to be well dressed.” It is a visible signal of all the unobservable work you’ve done to care for them. This is more critical now that our faces are covered and concern for infection means wearing shabby hospital scrubs rather than shirt and tie.

Effort is also required for telephone and video visits. In them, our doctor-patient connection is diminished – no matter how high definition, it’s a virtual affair. Ms. Hepburn would no doubt take the time to ensure she appeared professional, well lit, with a pleasing background. She’d plan for the call to be done in a quiet location and without distraction.

Whether in person or by phone, grace, as Ms. Hepburn demonstrated, is physical awareness and body control. She would often be completely still when someone is speaking, showing a countenance of warmth. She’d pause after the other person completed a thought and before replying. In doing so, she conveyed that she was present and engaged in what was being said. It is that confidence and ease of manner we perceived as grace.

I thought about this the other day during a mixed clinic of telephone and face-to-face visits. I had on my wrinkle-free scrubs (I could do better). I was listening to a patient describe all possible triggers for her hand dermatitis. My urge to interrupt grew with each paragraph of her storytelling. “Be patient,” I thought, “be at ease with her rambling. ... When she stops, thank her as if you were looking her in the eye acknowledging how interesting her observations were.” This is not just good manners, it’s the essence of grace: The art of showing how important others are to you.

Our world needs grace more than ever and what better place to start but with us. In pleasing, assisting, and honoring them, our patients can be reassured that we can and will care for them. Make Ms. Hepburn proud.

“For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone.” – Audrey Hepburn

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He has no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.