Levocetirizine and montelukast in the COVID-19 treatment paradigm.

Levocetirizine, a third-generation antihistamine, and montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, exhibit remarkable synergistic anti-inflammatory activity across a spectrum of signaling proteins, cell adhesion molecules, and leukocytes. By targeting cellular protein activity, they are uniquely positioned to treat the symptoms of COVID-19. Clinical data to date with an associated six-month follow-up, suggests the combination therapy may prevent the progression of the disease from mild to moderate to severe, as well as prevent/treat many of the aspects of 'Long COVID,' thereby cost effectively reducing both morbidity and mortality. To investigate patient outcomes, 53 consecutive COVID-19 test (+) cases (ages 3-90) from a well-established, single-center practice in Boston, Massachusetts, between March - November 2020, were treated with levocetirizine and montelukast in addition to then existing protocols [2]. The data set was retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-four cases were considered mild (64%), 17 moderate (32%), and 2 (4%) severe. Several patients presented with significant comorbidities (obesity: n = 22, 41%; diabetes: n = 10, 19%; hypertension: n = 24, 45%). Among the cohort there were no exclusions, no intubations, and no deaths. The pilot study in Massachusetts encompassed the first COVID-19 wave which peaked on April 23, 2020 as well as the ascending portion of the second wave in the fall. During this period the average weekly COVID-19 case mortality rate (confirmed deaths/confirmed cases) varied considerably between 1 and 7.5% [37]. FDA has approved a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 clinical trial design, replete with electronic diaries and laboratory metrics to explore scientific questions not addressed herein.

"If it weren't for my faith": spirituality in advanced cancer.

Patient spirituality plays a frequent and salient role in serious illness. Using a patient case, we illustrate the importance of recognizing spirituality and spiritual needs in palliative care provision.

A Model of Collaborative Spiritual and Psychiatric Care of Oncology Patients.

BACKGROUND: Many oncology patients see both chaplains and consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrists during medical hospitalizations. Studies show that spirituality and mental health influence one another, and that patients often prefer that physicians understand their spirituality. Though models of inpatient chaplaincy-psychiatry collaboration likely exist, none are apparent in the literature. In this study, we present one model of chaplaincy-psychiatry collaboration, hypothesizing that both specialties would find the intervention helpful. METHODS: From April through December 2015, the C-L psychiatry service at Brigham & Women's Hospital piloted 13 sessions of interdisciplinary rounds, where chaplains and C-L psychiatrists discussed common oncology patients. Participants completed questionnaires including quantitative and qualitative prompts before the intervention, after each session, and at the study's conclusion. RESULTS: Eighteen individuals completed baseline questionnaires. Between baseline and final surveys, the proportion of participants describing themselves as "very satisfied" with the 2 services' integration rose from 0-36%. The proportion of participants feeling "not comfortable" addressing issues in the other discipline declined from 17-0%. The most frequently chosen options on how discussions had been helpful were that they had enhanced understanding of both patient needs (83.3%) and the other discipline (78.6%). Qualitative data yielded similar themes. At conclusion, all respondents expressed preference that interdisciplinary rounds continue. CONCLUSION: This study describes a model of enhancing collaboration between chaplains and C-L psychiatrists, an intervention not previously studied to our knowledge. A pilot intervention of the model was perceived by both specialties to enhance both patient care and understanding of the other discipline.

Teaching health care providers to provide spiritual care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers' lack of education on spiritual care is a significant barrier to the integration of spiritual care into health care services. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to describe the training program, Clinical Pastoral Education for Healthcare Providers (CPE-HP) and evaluate its impact on providers' spiritual care skills. METHODS: Fifty CPE-HP participants completed self-report surveys at baseline and posttraining measuring frequency of and confidence in providing religious/spiritual (R/S) care. Four domains were assessed: (1) ability and (2) frequency of R/S care provision; (3) comfort using religious language; and (4) confidence in providing R/S care. RESULTS: At baseline, participants rated their ability to provide R/S care and comfort with religious language as "fair." In the previous two weeks, they reported approximately two R/S patient conversations, initiated R/S conversations less than twice, and prayed with patients less than once. Posttraining participants' reported ability to provide spiritual care increased by 33% (p<0.001). Their comfort using religious language improved by 29% (p<0.001), and frequency of R/S care increased 75% (p<0.001). Participants reported having 61% more (p<0.001) R/S conversations and more frequent prayer with patients (95% increase; p<0.001). Confidence in providing spiritual care improved by 36% overall, by 20% (p<0.001) with religiously concordant patients, and by 43% (p<0.001) with religiously discordant patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CPE-HP is an effective approach for training health care providers in spiritual care. Dissemination of this training may improve integration of spiritual care into health care, thereby strengthening comprehensive patient-centered care.

Provision of spiritual support to patients with advanced cancer by religious communities and associations with medical care at the end of life.

IMPORTANCE: Previous studies report associations between medical utilization at the end-of-life (EoL) and religious coping and spiritual support from the medical team. However, the influence of clergy and religious communities on EoL outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spiritual support from religious communities influences terminally ill patients' medical care and quality of life (QoL) near death. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A US-based, multisite cohort study of 343 patients with advanced cancer enrolled from September 2002 through August 2008 and followed up (median duration, 116 days) until death. Baseline interviews assessed support of patients' spiritual needs by religious communities. End-of-life medical care in the final week included the following: hospice, aggressive EoL measures (care in an intensive care unit [ICU], resuscitation, or ventilation), and ICU death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End-of-life QoL was assessed by caregiver ratings of patient QoL in the last week of life. Multivariable regression analyses were performed on EoL care outcomes in relation to religious community spiritual support, controlling for confounding variables, and were repeated among high religious coping and racial/ethnic minority patients. RESULTS: Patients reporting high spiritual support from religious communities (43%) were less likely to receive hospice (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.70 [P = .002]), more likely to receive aggressive EoL measures (AOR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.14-6.06 [P = .02]), and more likely to die in an ICU (AOR, 5.22; 95% CI, 1.71-15.60 [P = .004]). Risks of receiving aggressive EoL interventions and ICU deaths were greater among high religious coping (AOR, 11.02; 95% CI, 2.83-42.89 [P < .001]; and AOR, 22.02; 95% CI, 3.24-149.58 [P = .002]; respectively) and racial/ethnic minority patients (AOR, 8.03; 95% CI, 2.04-31.55 [P = .003]; and AOR, 11.21; 95% CI, 2.29-54.88 [P = .003]; respectively). Among patients well-supported by religious communities, receiving spiritual support from the medical team was associated with higher rates of hospice use (AOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.03-5.44 [P = .04]), fewer aggressive interventions (AOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.79 [P = .02]) and fewer ICU deaths (AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.80 [P = .02]); and EoL discussions were associated with fewer aggressive interventions (AOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.63 [P = .01]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Terminally ill patients who are well supported by religious communities access hospice care less and aggressive medical interventions more near death. Spiritual care and EoL discussions by the medical team may reduce aggressive treatment, highlighting spiritual care as a key component of EoL medical care guidelines.