Clinical Endocrinology News

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.

If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.

“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.

The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
 

Still aiming for herd immunity

Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.

Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”

In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.

As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.

Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

Masks and the uncommon cold

Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.

Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.

“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
 

Variants: Some good news?

Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.

Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.

“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
 

Hesitancy from misinformation

Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.

“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.

Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.

“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”

Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

The future is subject to change

“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.

However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.

Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”

“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.

If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.

“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.

The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
 

Still aiming for herd immunity

Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.

Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”

In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.

As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.

Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

Masks and the uncommon cold

Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.

Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.

“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
 

Variants: Some good news?

Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.

Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.

“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
 

Hesitancy from misinformation

Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.

“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.

Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.

“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”

Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

The future is subject to change

“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.

However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.

Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”

“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.

If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.

“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.

The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
 

Still aiming for herd immunity

Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.

Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”

In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.

As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.

Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

Masks and the uncommon cold

Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.

Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.

“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
 

Variants: Some good news?

Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.

Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.

“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
 

Hesitancy from misinformation

Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.

“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.

Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.

“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”

Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
 

The future is subject to change

“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.

However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.

Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”

“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose.