The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in nationwide stay-at-home orders in an effort to slow the spread severely impacting the healthcare sector. Telepsychiatry provides a platform bridging the gap through advanced technologies connecting mental health providers and patients who need their services, overcoming previous barriers of great distances, lack of transportation, and even time constraints. The most obvious benefit is increased accessibility to mental healthcare, especially in underserved and remote areas where there is no easy access for in-person care. It is important to note that benefits are not limited to patients, but also allow clinicians greater flexibility in scheduling and reduced practice overhead costs, both of which aid with physician burnout and burden. Telepsychiatry during COVID-19 provides its own unique advantages over in-person visits. The risk of exposure to healthcare workers and patients receiving care is reduced, allowing immunocompromised patients to receive muchneeded psychiatric care. Without the need to meet in person, self-isolating psychiatrists can still provide care, decreasing strain on their co-workers. Although telepsychiatry is relatively new, it has already exhibited considerable success in its effectiveness at treating psychiatric conditions and widespread corollary benefits. Telepsychiatric consults may be carried out synchronously and asynchronously, each having benefits and setbacks. Different mobile application interventions have been explored, which are available for the purpose of both monitoring/assessing patients and/or providing treatment. The scope of conditions these applications address is broad, from anxiety disorders to schizophrenia to depression. As promising and beneficial telepsychiatry may seem, it is necessary to recognize that building the program can be challenging. It involves adapting to new methods in medicine. We highlighted barriers to general telepsychiatry, the most prominent being technological literacy of both physician and patient, and possible negative effects of eliminating the in-person patient-doctor interaction.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: COVID-19 has multiorgan involvement and it is believed that outcomes are poor amongst patients with hypertension (HTN) and pre-existing cardiovascular disorders (CVD). Hypothesis: The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes [mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) utilization] of COVID-19 in patients with pre-existing HTN and CVD. Methods: English full-text-observational studies having data on epidemiological characteristics of patients with COVID-19 were identified searching PubMed using MeSH-terms from December 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Studies having CVD or HTN as one of the pre-existing comorbidities and described outcomes including IMV and mortality were selected with a consensus of three reviewers. 29 studies met these criteria. Following MOOSE protocol, data on patients’ characteristics especially age and history of CVD, HTN, IMV, and mortality were pooled using a random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of CVD and HTN were calculated. Meta-regression was performed and correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated to evaluate the effects of pre-existing CVD and HTN on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Results: Out of 29 studies with COVID-19 epidemiology data, 21, 17, 18 and 19 studies have details on mortality, IMV, HTN, and pre-existing CVD, respectively. Pooled prevalence of HTN was 28.2% [95%CI:22.1%-35.1%; p<0.001; 4858/11626 patients; Heterogeneity (I 2 ):97.8%] and pre-existing CVD was 12.2% [8.9%-16.6%; p<0.001; 2044/11664 patients; I 2 :96.8%]. In age-adjusted meta-regression analysis, IMV was significantly higher among COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CVD [r:0.28; OR:1.3 (1.1-1.6); I 2 :89.7%; p=0.0028] without significant association with HTN [r:0.01; OR:1.0 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :95.9%; p=0.8161]. HTN [r:0.001; OR:1.0 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :96%; p=0.9685] and pre-existing CVD [r:-0.01; OR:0.9 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :96.3%; p=0.8772] had no significant association with mortality amongst COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: In the age-adjusted analysis, though we identified pre-existing CVD as a risk factor for higher utilization of IMV, pre-existing CVD and HTN had no independent role in increasing mortality.

Introduction: Previous studies had provided evidence that vitamin D deficiency is a strong negative predictor for survival and recovery after severe vascular events but national estimate on disability related burden is not clear. Hypothesis: We evaluate the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (VDD) amongst patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disorders (CeVD) and to find out whether or not CVD and CeVD in the presence of VDD increases the disability. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (years 2016-2017) in adults (≥18 years) hospitalizations. We identified patients with secondary diagnosis of VDD and primary diagnosis of CVD (AFib, CHF, IHD, acute MI, and angina) and CeVD (AIS, TIA, ICeH and SAH) using ICD-10-CM codes. We performed a chi-square test and multivariable survey logistic regression to analyze disability of patients with CVD and CeVD in presence of VDD. Disability/loss of function was investigated by APRDRGs severity using 3M Health Information Systems software. (Score 1-4 indicates minor to extreme loss of function) Results: Among 58,259,589 US hospitalizations, 3.44%, 2.15%, 0.06%, 1.28%, 11.49%, 1.71%, 0.38%, 0.23% and 0.08% had primary admission of IHD, acute MI, angina, AFib, CHF, AIS, TIA, ICeH and SAH, respectively and 1.82% had VDD. Prevalence of hospitalizations due to CHF (14.66% vs 11.43%), AIS (1.87% vs 1.71%) and TIA (0.4% vs 0.38%) was higher; and IHD (2.62% vs 3.45%), acute MI (1.58% vs 2.16), angina (0.05% vs 0.06%), AFib (1.14% vs 1.28%), ICeH (0.17% vs 0.23%) and SAH (0.05% vs 0.08%) was lower among VDD patients in compare to non-VDD. (p<0.0001) In regression analysis, VDD was associated with higher odds of severe or extreme disability amongst patients hospitalized with AIS (OR:1.1; 95%CI:1.06-1.14), ICeH (1.22; 1.08-1.39), TIA (1.36; 1.25-1.47), IHD (1.37; 1.33-1.41), acute MI (1.44; 1.38-1.49), Afib (1.10; 1.06-1.15), and CHF (1.03; 1.02-1.05) in comparison to without VDD. Conclusions: CVD and CeVD in presence of VDD increase the disability amongst US hospitalizations. Future studies should be planned to evaluate the discharge outcomes as well as the effect of identification and in-hospital management of VDD on improvement of the outcomes.