Pediatric News

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who wear stable supportive shoes for 6 months have greater average reductions in knee pain when walking, compared with patients who wear flat flexible shoes, according to a randomized trial that included more than 160 patients.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

“Contrary to our hypothesis, flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes,” reported Kade L. Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their study was published Jan. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Research gap

Abnormal knee joint loading has been implicated in the pathogenesis of knee OA. Guidelines recommend that patients wear appropriate footwear, but research has not established which shoes are best.

The 2019 American College of Rheumatology clinical guidelines note that “optimal footwear is likely to be of considerable importance for those with knee and/or hip OA,” but “the available studies do not define the best type of footwear to improve specific outcomes for knee or hip OA.”

Some doctors call for thick, shock-absorbing soles and arch supports, based on expert opinion. On the other hand, studies have found that knee loading is lower with flat flexible shoes, and preliminary evidence has suggested that flat flexible shoes may improve OA symptoms, the investigators said.

To study this question, they enrolled in their trial 164 patients aged 50 years and older who had radiographic medial knee OA. Participants had knee pain on most days of the previous month, tibiofemoral osteophytes, and moderate to severe tibiofemoral OA.

The researchers randomly assigned 82 participants to flat flexible shoes and 82 participants to stable supportive shoes, worn for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months.

In the trial, flat flexible shoes included Merrell Bare Access (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Primus Lite (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Mata Canvas (men’s), Converse Dainty Low (women’s), and Lacoste Marice (men’s).

Stable supportive shoes included ASICS Kayano (men’s and women’s), Merrell Jungle Moc (men’s), Nike Air Max 90 Ultra (women’s), Rockport Edge Hill (men’s), and New Balance 624 (women’s).

After participants were randomly assigned to a group, they chose two different pairs of shoes from their assigned footwear group.

“Participants were not told that the purpose of the study was to compare flat flexible with stable supportive shoes,” the researchers noted. “Instead, they were informed only that the trial was comparing the effects of ‘different shoes’ on knee OA symptoms.”

The primary outcomes were changes in walking pain on a 0-10 scale and physical function as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale at 6 months. The researchers also assessed other measures of pain and function, physical activity, and quality of life.

In all, 161 participants reported 6-month primary outcomes. The between-group difference in change in pain favored stable supportive shoes (mean difference, 1.1 units). In the flat flexible shoe group, overall average knee pain while walking decreased from 6.3 at baseline to 5.2 at 6 months. In the stable supportive shoe group, knee pain while walking decreased from 6.1 to 4.

In addition, improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain favored stable supportive shoes.

Participants who wore stable supportive shoes also were less likely to report adverse events, compared with those who wore flat flexible shoes (15% vs. 32%). Knee pain, ankle or foot pain, and shin or calf pain were among the adverse events reported.
 

‘Important work’

“This study suggests that more supportive shoes may help some patients with knee osteoarthritis feel better,” Constance R. Chu, MD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Shoes, insoles, wedges, and high heels have been shown to change loading of the knee related to knee pain and osteoarthritis ... This is important work toward providing more specific information on the optimum shoes for people with different patterns and types of arthritis to reduce pain and disability from early knee OA.”

The reported changes in pain may be clinically meaningful for many but not all patients, the authors wrote. “Despite biomechanical evidence showing that flat flexible shoes reduce medial knee load compared with stable supportive shoes, our findings show that this does not translate to improved knee osteoarthritis symptoms,” they said. “This may be because relationships between knee loading and symptoms are not as strong as previously thought, or because the small reductions in medial knee load with flat flexible shoes are insufficient to substantively improve pain and function.”

The trial did not include a control group of patients who wore their usual shoes, and it focused on a select subgroup of patients with knee OA, which may limit the study’s generalizability, the authors noted. The study excluded people with lateral joint space narrowing greater than or equal to medial, those with recent or planned knee surgery, and those who were using shoe orthoses or customized shoes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Chu had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who wear stable supportive shoes for 6 months have greater average reductions in knee pain when walking, compared with patients who wear flat flexible shoes, according to a randomized trial that included more than 160 patients.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

“Contrary to our hypothesis, flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes,” reported Kade L. Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their study was published Jan. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Research gap

Abnormal knee joint loading has been implicated in the pathogenesis of knee OA. Guidelines recommend that patients wear appropriate footwear, but research has not established which shoes are best.

The 2019 American College of Rheumatology clinical guidelines note that “optimal footwear is likely to be of considerable importance for those with knee and/or hip OA,” but “the available studies do not define the best type of footwear to improve specific outcomes for knee or hip OA.”

Some doctors call for thick, shock-absorbing soles and arch supports, based on expert opinion. On the other hand, studies have found that knee loading is lower with flat flexible shoes, and preliminary evidence has suggested that flat flexible shoes may improve OA symptoms, the investigators said.

To study this question, they enrolled in their trial 164 patients aged 50 years and older who had radiographic medial knee OA. Participants had knee pain on most days of the previous month, tibiofemoral osteophytes, and moderate to severe tibiofemoral OA.

The researchers randomly assigned 82 participants to flat flexible shoes and 82 participants to stable supportive shoes, worn for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months.

In the trial, flat flexible shoes included Merrell Bare Access (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Primus Lite (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Mata Canvas (men’s), Converse Dainty Low (women’s), and Lacoste Marice (men’s).

Stable supportive shoes included ASICS Kayano (men’s and women’s), Merrell Jungle Moc (men’s), Nike Air Max 90 Ultra (women’s), Rockport Edge Hill (men’s), and New Balance 624 (women’s).

After participants were randomly assigned to a group, they chose two different pairs of shoes from their assigned footwear group.

“Participants were not told that the purpose of the study was to compare flat flexible with stable supportive shoes,” the researchers noted. “Instead, they were informed only that the trial was comparing the effects of ‘different shoes’ on knee OA symptoms.”

The primary outcomes were changes in walking pain on a 0-10 scale and physical function as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale at 6 months. The researchers also assessed other measures of pain and function, physical activity, and quality of life.

In all, 161 participants reported 6-month primary outcomes. The between-group difference in change in pain favored stable supportive shoes (mean difference, 1.1 units). In the flat flexible shoe group, overall average knee pain while walking decreased from 6.3 at baseline to 5.2 at 6 months. In the stable supportive shoe group, knee pain while walking decreased from 6.1 to 4.

In addition, improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain favored stable supportive shoes.

Participants who wore stable supportive shoes also were less likely to report adverse events, compared with those who wore flat flexible shoes (15% vs. 32%). Knee pain, ankle or foot pain, and shin or calf pain were among the adverse events reported.
 

‘Important work’

“This study suggests that more supportive shoes may help some patients with knee osteoarthritis feel better,” Constance R. Chu, MD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Shoes, insoles, wedges, and high heels have been shown to change loading of the knee related to knee pain and osteoarthritis ... This is important work toward providing more specific information on the optimum shoes for people with different patterns and types of arthritis to reduce pain and disability from early knee OA.”

The reported changes in pain may be clinically meaningful for many but not all patients, the authors wrote. “Despite biomechanical evidence showing that flat flexible shoes reduce medial knee load compared with stable supportive shoes, our findings show that this does not translate to improved knee osteoarthritis symptoms,” they said. “This may be because relationships between knee loading and symptoms are not as strong as previously thought, or because the small reductions in medial knee load with flat flexible shoes are insufficient to substantively improve pain and function.”

The trial did not include a control group of patients who wore their usual shoes, and it focused on a select subgroup of patients with knee OA, which may limit the study’s generalizability, the authors noted. The study excluded people with lateral joint space narrowing greater than or equal to medial, those with recent or planned knee surgery, and those who were using shoe orthoses or customized shoes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Chu had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who wear stable supportive shoes for 6 months have greater average reductions in knee pain when walking, compared with patients who wear flat flexible shoes, according to a randomized trial that included more than 160 patients.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

“Contrary to our hypothesis, flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes,” reported Kade L. Paterson, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their study was published Jan. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Research gap

Abnormal knee joint loading has been implicated in the pathogenesis of knee OA. Guidelines recommend that patients wear appropriate footwear, but research has not established which shoes are best.

The 2019 American College of Rheumatology clinical guidelines note that “optimal footwear is likely to be of considerable importance for those with knee and/or hip OA,” but “the available studies do not define the best type of footwear to improve specific outcomes for knee or hip OA.”

Some doctors call for thick, shock-absorbing soles and arch supports, based on expert opinion. On the other hand, studies have found that knee loading is lower with flat flexible shoes, and preliminary evidence has suggested that flat flexible shoes may improve OA symptoms, the investigators said.

To study this question, they enrolled in their trial 164 patients aged 50 years and older who had radiographic medial knee OA. Participants had knee pain on most days of the previous month, tibiofemoral osteophytes, and moderate to severe tibiofemoral OA.

The researchers randomly assigned 82 participants to flat flexible shoes and 82 participants to stable supportive shoes, worn for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months.

In the trial, flat flexible shoes included Merrell Bare Access (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Primus Lite (men’s and women’s), Vivobarefoot Mata Canvas (men’s), Converse Dainty Low (women’s), and Lacoste Marice (men’s).

Stable supportive shoes included ASICS Kayano (men’s and women’s), Merrell Jungle Moc (men’s), Nike Air Max 90 Ultra (women’s), Rockport Edge Hill (men’s), and New Balance 624 (women’s).

After participants were randomly assigned to a group, they chose two different pairs of shoes from their assigned footwear group.

“Participants were not told that the purpose of the study was to compare flat flexible with stable supportive shoes,” the researchers noted. “Instead, they were informed only that the trial was comparing the effects of ‘different shoes’ on knee OA symptoms.”

The primary outcomes were changes in walking pain on a 0-10 scale and physical function as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale at 6 months. The researchers also assessed other measures of pain and function, physical activity, and quality of life.

In all, 161 participants reported 6-month primary outcomes. The between-group difference in change in pain favored stable supportive shoes (mean difference, 1.1 units). In the flat flexible shoe group, overall average knee pain while walking decreased from 6.3 at baseline to 5.2 at 6 months. In the stable supportive shoe group, knee pain while walking decreased from 6.1 to 4.

In addition, improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain favored stable supportive shoes.

Participants who wore stable supportive shoes also were less likely to report adverse events, compared with those who wore flat flexible shoes (15% vs. 32%). Knee pain, ankle or foot pain, and shin or calf pain were among the adverse events reported.
 

‘Important work’

“This study suggests that more supportive shoes may help some patients with knee osteoarthritis feel better,” Constance R. Chu, MD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Shoes, insoles, wedges, and high heels have been shown to change loading of the knee related to knee pain and osteoarthritis ... This is important work toward providing more specific information on the optimum shoes for people with different patterns and types of arthritis to reduce pain and disability from early knee OA.”

The reported changes in pain may be clinically meaningful for many but not all patients, the authors wrote. “Despite biomechanical evidence showing that flat flexible shoes reduce medial knee load compared with stable supportive shoes, our findings show that this does not translate to improved knee osteoarthritis symptoms,” they said. “This may be because relationships between knee loading and symptoms are not as strong as previously thought, or because the small reductions in medial knee load with flat flexible shoes are insufficient to substantively improve pain and function.”

The trial did not include a control group of patients who wore their usual shoes, and it focused on a select subgroup of patients with knee OA, which may limit the study’s generalizability, the authors noted. The study excluded people with lateral joint space narrowing greater than or equal to medial, those with recent or planned knee surgery, and those who were using shoe orthoses or customized shoes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Chu had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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