Mental Health Care Providers Dealing With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): What Is the Definition of a Case, How Is That Changing, and What Kinds of Tests Are Available?

The goal of this column is to inform mental health care professionals about the evolving way the diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is being made, with emphasis on tests to assist in making the diagnosis and to determine the presence of antibodies to the virus. This column also provides some general information about the disease, its relative risks, and efforts to develop effective treatments. Links to credible websites that are being continuously updated are also provided for readers who want more information and to stay current with ongoing developments.

Why Are Patients With COVID-19 at Risk for Drug-Drug Interactions?

The goal of this column is to provide information to health care professionals about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and why DDIs are important to consider in those at serious risk of illness with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Important considerations discussed in this column include the frequency and complexity of multiple medication use, particularly important for the older patient who often has multiple comorbid illnesses. The column covers the following issues: (1) Why patients at high risk for serious illness from COVID-19 are also at high risk for DDIs. (2) Application of results of pharmacoepidemiological studies to the population at risk for serious COVID-19 illness. (3) Mechanisms underlying DDIs, frequency and potential complexity of DDIs, and how DDIs can present clinically. (4) Methods for preventing or mitigating DDIs. (5) An introduction to the University of Liverpool drug interaction checker as a tool to reduce the risk of adverse DDIs while treating patients for COVID-19. Commentary is also provided on issues related to specific psychiatric and nonpsychiatric medications a patient may be taking. A subsequent column will focus on DDIs between psychiatric medications and emerging COVID-19 treatments, as a detailed discussion of that topic is beyond the scope of this column.

COVID-19: Why Has the Mortality Rate Declined?

This article explains how the mortality rate of an illness such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is calculated as well as how the definition of what is a "case" has changed from the earliest days of the pandemic to now. Many factors were not known about The Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic because it is a novel human pathogen. One key factor that was not known in the earliest days of the pandemic was that many patients are either asymptomatic or have symptoms so mild that they may not seek medical attention and hence these patients would not be identified as a "case" if that term is defined as being sufficiently symptomatic to be seeking medical attention. Cases in the earliest days of the pandemic were defined as based on having symptoms (eg, fever, cough, respiratory distress) after ruling out other possible causes. Cases now are defined by tests confirming that the person is shedding the SARS-CoV-2 (ie, a laboratory vs. a symptomatic diagnosis). The mortality rate of this virus dropped as a function of this change. On the basis of the results of an unintended, naturalistic experiment on an expeditionary cruise in March of 2020, there was more than a 5-fold drop in the calculated mortality rate due to this definitional change in what constituted a case. This column explains this issue and discusses its implications for effectively dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 (or COVID-19) pandemic.

The 5% of the Population at High Risk for Severe COVID-19 Infection Is Identifiable and Needs to Be Taken Into Account When Reopening the Economy

The goal of this column is to help mental health care professionals understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so that they can better explain the complexities of the current crisis to their patients. The bottom-line of this column is that, while COVID-19 can infect virtually everyone in the human population, only about 5% are susceptible to severe infection requiring admission to an intensive care unit and/or causing a fatal outcome and this population can be identified on the basis of comorbid medical illness and/or age. These numbers are based on experience in China, the United States, and Europe. Table 1 presents an analysis conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is further supported by several other sources reviewed in the article. The population at risk for severe infection are individuals with comorbid medical illness and those 85 years of age and older. The comorbid medical illnesses identified as risk factors are preexisting respiratory and cardiovascular disease, immunocompromised status, morbid obesity (ie, body mass index >/=40), diabetes mellitus, and possibly significant kidney or liver impairment. Parenthetically, news reports and the literature sometimes cite age 60 years and older as a risk factor but age between 60 and 85 years is likely a surrogate for having 1 or more of these comorbid medical conditions. While 5% may initially seem like a small number, it nevertheless potentially represents 16.5 million people, given the United States population of 330 million. That is a tremendous number of people requiring intensive care unit admission and/or potentially dying, and individuals in this population have overwhelmed the US health care system in some hotspots. For this reason, this column suggests taking this at-risk population into account in mitigation strategies when attempting to open the US economy. The column addresses the following questions: (1) What are the 3 aspects of the race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19? (2) What data are currently available to help guide decisions to be made? (3) What strategies have been employed to date and how successful have they been? and (4) Might risk stratification of exposure be a viable strategy to minimize the damage caused by the virus? The race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19 requires that we obtain knowledge about the disease and its treatment or prevention, how to best safeguard public health and avoid overwhelming the health care system, and how to minimize the societal damage caused by substantial disruption of the economy. Data gathered over the past 4 months since the COVID-19 virus emerged as a human pathogen have provided guidance for our decisions going forward. The most widely adopted strategies for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic to date have involved the epidemiological approach of encouraging good hygiene practices and social distancing, including orders to "shelter in place," quarantine of high-risk individuals, and isolation of infected individuals. The goal of this epidemiological approach has been to "flatten the curve" by reducing the height of the peak of the infection to avoid overwhelming the health care system and society in general, while buying time to learn more about the disease and find more effective ways to deal with it. However, now that more is known about COVID-19 and the portion of the population that is most at risk for serious adverse outcomes including death, it may be possible to move from a shelter-in-place approach for the entire population to focus on those at most risk and thus facilitate a gradual and rational phased reduction of social restrictions to reopen the economy. Such a graduated opening would be based on regions of countries meeting specific criteria in terms of being able to contain the virus, coupled with vigorous monitoring to look for outbreaks, followed by case monitoring, isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of exposed individuals, and increased use of testing for active disease as well as for immunity. Taking the data n high-risk individuals into account would allow for a gradual lifting of restrictions on the majority of the population while maintaining more stringent safeguards to protect the vulnerable portion of the population. Nevertheless, the entire population would need to continue to practice good hygiene and social distancing while simultaneously-and perhaps even more vigorously-focusing on sheltering the vulnerable population until adequate community immunity has been achieved to prevent the spread of the virus, whether that is accomplished through natural exposure alone or with the addition of safe and effective vaccine(s) which may not be available for a year. Continued widespread testing for antibodies will help determine how far or close this country is-and other countries are-from developing effective community immunity.