MDedge Infectious Disease

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

A Medscape poll on clinicians’ confidence surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11 showed significant hesitancy.

Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.

Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.

The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.

The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
 

How safe is the vaccine?

Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.

Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.

Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”

Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.

Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.

Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).

The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
 

Knowledge about smaller dosage

The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.

The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.

Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).

The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.

Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).

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

A Medscape poll on clinicians’ confidence surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11 showed significant hesitancy.

Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.

Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.

The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.

The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
 

How safe is the vaccine?

Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.

Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.

Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”

Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.

Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.

Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).

The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
 

Knowledge about smaller dosage

The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.

The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.

Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).

The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.

Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).

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

A Medscape poll on clinicians’ confidence surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11 showed significant hesitancy.

Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.

Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.

The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.

The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
 

How safe is the vaccine?

Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.

Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.

Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”

Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.

Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.

Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).

The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
 

Knowledge about smaller dosage

The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.

The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.

Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).

The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.

Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).

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

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

WESTMINSTER, COLO. – Melissa Blatzer was determined to get her three children caught up on their routine immunizations on a recent Saturday morning at a walk-in clinic in this Denver suburb. It had been about a year since the kids’ last shots, a delay Ms. Blatzer chalked up to the pandemic.

Two-year-old Lincoln Blatzer, in his fleece dinosaur pajamas, waited anxiously in line for his hepatitis A vaccine. His siblings, 14-year-old Nyla Kusumah and 11-year-old Nevan Kusumah, were there for their TDAP, HPV and meningococcal vaccines, plus a COVID-19 shot for Nyla.

“You don’t have to make an appointment and you can take all three at once,” said Ms. Blatzer, who lives several miles away in Commerce City. That convenience outweighed the difficulty of getting everyone up early on a weekend.

Child health experts hope community clinics like this – along with the return to in-person classes, more well-child visits, and the rollout of COVID shots for younger children – can help boost routine childhood immunizations, which dropped during the pandemic. Despite a rebound, immunization rates are still lower than in 2019, and disparities in rates between racial and economic groups, particularly for Black children, have been exacerbated.

“We’re still not back to where we need to be,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Routine immunizations protect children against 16 infectious diseases, including measles, diphtheria and chickenpox, and inhibit transmission to the community.

The rollout of COVID shots for younger kids is an opportunity to catch up on routine vaccinations, said Dr. O’Leary, adding that children can receive these vaccines together. Primary care practices, where many children are likely to receive the COVID shots, usually have other childhood vaccines on hand.

“It’s really important that parents and health care providers work together so that all children are up to date on these recommended vaccines,” said Malini DeSilva, MD, an internist and pediatrician at HealthPartners in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area. “Not only for the child’s health but for our community’s health.”

People were reluctant to come out for routine immunizations at the height of the pandemic, said Karen Miller, an immunization nurse manager for the Denver area’s Tri-County Health Department, which ran the Westminster clinic. National and global data confirm what Ms. Miller saw on the ground.

Global vaccine coverage in children fell from 2019 to 2020, according to a recent study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF. Reasons included reduced access, lack of transportation, worries about COVID exposure and supply chain interruptions, the study said.

Third doses of the DTP vaccine and of the polio vaccine decreased from 86% of all eligible children in 2019 to 83% in 2020, according to the study. Worldwide, 22.7 million children had not had their third dose of DTP in 2020, compared with 19 million in 2019. Three doses are far more effective than one or two at protecting children and communities.

In the United States, researchers who studied 2019 and 2020 data on routine vaccinations in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin found substantial disruptions in vaccination rates during the pandemic that continued into September 2020. For example, the percentage of 7-month-old babies who were up to date on vaccinations decreased from 81% in September 2019 to 74% a year later.

The proportion of Black children up to date on immunizations in almost all age groups was lower than that of children in other racial and ethnic groups. This was most pronounced in those turning 18 months old: Only 41% of Black children that age were caught up on vaccinations in September 2020, compared with 57% of all children at 18 months, said Dr. DeSilva, who led that study.

A CDC study of data from the National Immunization Surveys found that race and ethnicity, poverty, and lack of insurance created the greatest disparities in vaccination rates, and the authors noted that extra efforts are needed to counter the pandemic’s disruptions.

In addition to the problems caused by COVID, Ms. Miller said, competing life priorities like work and school impede families from keeping up with shots. Weekend vaccination clinics can help working parents get their children caught up on routine immunizations while they get a flu or COVID shot. Ms. Miller and O’Leary also said reminders via phone, text or email can boost immunizations.

“Vaccines are so effective that I think it’s easy for families to put immunizations on the back burner because we don’t often hear about these diseases,” she said.

It’s a long and nasty list that includes hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, rubella, rotavirus, pneumococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, human papillomavirus, and meningococcal disease, among others. Even small drops in vaccination coverage can lead to outbreaks. And measles is the perfect example that worries experts, particularly as international travel opens up.

“Measles is among the most contagious diseases known to humankind, meaning that we have to keep very high vaccination coverage to keep it from spreading,” said Dr. O’Leary.

In 2019, 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states in mostly unvaccinated children and adults. Dr. O’Leary said outbreaks in New York City were contained because surrounding areas had high vaccination coverage. But an outbreak in an undervaccinated community still could spread beyond its borders.

In some states a significant number of parents were opposed to routine childhood vaccines even before the pandemic for religious or personal reasons, posing another challenge for health professionals. For example, 87% of Colorado kindergartners were vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella during the 2018-19 school year, one of the nation’s lowest rates.

Those rates bumped up to 91% in 2019-20 but are still below the CDC’s target of 95%.

Dr. O’Leary said he does not see the same level of hesitancy for routine immunizations as for COVID. “There has always been vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusers. But we’ve maintained vaccination rates north of 90% for all routine childhood vaccines for a long time now,” he said.

Dr. DeSilva said the “ripple effects” of missed vaccinations earlier in the pandemic continued into 2021. As children returned to in-person learning this fall, schools may have been the first place families heard about missed vaccinations. Individual states set vaccination requirements, and allowable exemptions, for entry at schools and child care facilities. In 2020, Colorado passed a school entry immunization law that tightened allowable exemptions.

“Schools, where vaccination requirements are generally enforced, are stretched thin for a variety of reasons, including COVID,” said Dr. O’Leary, adding that managing vaccine requirements may be more difficult for some, but not all, schools.

Anayeli Dominguez, 13, was at the Westminster clinic for a Tdap vaccine because her middle school had noticed she was not up to date.

“School nurses play an important role in helping identify students in need of immunizations, and also by connecting families to resources both within the district and in the larger community,” said Denver Public Schools spokesperson Will Jones.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

WESTMINSTER, COLO. – Melissa Blatzer was determined to get her three children caught up on their routine immunizations on a recent Saturday morning at a walk-in clinic in this Denver suburb. It had been about a year since the kids’ last shots, a delay Ms. Blatzer chalked up to the pandemic.

Two-year-old Lincoln Blatzer, in his fleece dinosaur pajamas, waited anxiously in line for his hepatitis A vaccine. His siblings, 14-year-old Nyla Kusumah and 11-year-old Nevan Kusumah, were there for their TDAP, HPV and meningococcal vaccines, plus a COVID-19 shot for Nyla.

“You don’t have to make an appointment and you can take all three at once,” said Ms. Blatzer, who lives several miles away in Commerce City. That convenience outweighed the difficulty of getting everyone up early on a weekend.

Child health experts hope community clinics like this – along with the return to in-person classes, more well-child visits, and the rollout of COVID shots for younger children – can help boost routine childhood immunizations, which dropped during the pandemic. Despite a rebound, immunization rates are still lower than in 2019, and disparities in rates between racial and economic groups, particularly for Black children, have been exacerbated.

“We’re still not back to where we need to be,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Routine immunizations protect children against 16 infectious diseases, including measles, diphtheria and chickenpox, and inhibit transmission to the community.

The rollout of COVID shots for younger kids is an opportunity to catch up on routine vaccinations, said Dr. O’Leary, adding that children can receive these vaccines together. Primary care practices, where many children are likely to receive the COVID shots, usually have other childhood vaccines on hand.

“It’s really important that parents and health care providers work together so that all children are up to date on these recommended vaccines,” said Malini DeSilva, MD, an internist and pediatrician at HealthPartners in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area. “Not only for the child’s health but for our community’s health.”

People were reluctant to come out for routine immunizations at the height of the pandemic, said Karen Miller, an immunization nurse manager for the Denver area’s Tri-County Health Department, which ran the Westminster clinic. National and global data confirm what Ms. Miller saw on the ground.

Global vaccine coverage in children fell from 2019 to 2020, according to a recent study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF. Reasons included reduced access, lack of transportation, worries about COVID exposure and supply chain interruptions, the study said.

Third doses of the DTP vaccine and of the polio vaccine decreased from 86% of all eligible children in 2019 to 83% in 2020, according to the study. Worldwide, 22.7 million children had not had their third dose of DTP in 2020, compared with 19 million in 2019. Three doses are far more effective than one or two at protecting children and communities.

In the United States, researchers who studied 2019 and 2020 data on routine vaccinations in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin found substantial disruptions in vaccination rates during the pandemic that continued into September 2020. For example, the percentage of 7-month-old babies who were up to date on vaccinations decreased from 81% in September 2019 to 74% a year later.

The proportion of Black children up to date on immunizations in almost all age groups was lower than that of children in other racial and ethnic groups. This was most pronounced in those turning 18 months old: Only 41% of Black children that age were caught up on vaccinations in September 2020, compared with 57% of all children at 18 months, said Dr. DeSilva, who led that study.

A CDC study of data from the National Immunization Surveys found that race and ethnicity, poverty, and lack of insurance created the greatest disparities in vaccination rates, and the authors noted that extra efforts are needed to counter the pandemic’s disruptions.

In addition to the problems caused by COVID, Ms. Miller said, competing life priorities like work and school impede families from keeping up with shots. Weekend vaccination clinics can help working parents get their children caught up on routine immunizations while they get a flu or COVID shot. Ms. Miller and O’Leary also said reminders via phone, text or email can boost immunizations.

“Vaccines are so effective that I think it’s easy for families to put immunizations on the back burner because we don’t often hear about these diseases,” she said.

It’s a long and nasty list that includes hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, rubella, rotavirus, pneumococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, human papillomavirus, and meningococcal disease, among others. Even small drops in vaccination coverage can lead to outbreaks. And measles is the perfect example that worries experts, particularly as international travel opens up.

“Measles is among the most contagious diseases known to humankind, meaning that we have to keep very high vaccination coverage to keep it from spreading,” said Dr. O’Leary.

In 2019, 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states in mostly unvaccinated children and adults. Dr. O’Leary said outbreaks in New York City were contained because surrounding areas had high vaccination coverage. But an outbreak in an undervaccinated community still could spread beyond its borders.

In some states a significant number of parents were opposed to routine childhood vaccines even before the pandemic for religious or personal reasons, posing another challenge for health professionals. For example, 87% of Colorado kindergartners were vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella during the 2018-19 school year, one of the nation’s lowest rates.

Those rates bumped up to 91% in 2019-20 but are still below the CDC’s target of 95%.

Dr. O’Leary said he does not see the same level of hesitancy for routine immunizations as for COVID. “There has always been vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusers. But we’ve maintained vaccination rates north of 90% for all routine childhood vaccines for a long time now,” he said.

Dr. DeSilva said the “ripple effects” of missed vaccinations earlier in the pandemic continued into 2021. As children returned to in-person learning this fall, schools may have been the first place families heard about missed vaccinations. Individual states set vaccination requirements, and allowable exemptions, for entry at schools and child care facilities. In 2020, Colorado passed a school entry immunization law that tightened allowable exemptions.

“Schools, where vaccination requirements are generally enforced, are stretched thin for a variety of reasons, including COVID,” said Dr. O’Leary, adding that managing vaccine requirements may be more difficult for some, but not all, schools.

Anayeli Dominguez, 13, was at the Westminster clinic for a Tdap vaccine because her middle school had noticed she was not up to date.

“School nurses play an important role in helping identify students in need of immunizations, and also by connecting families to resources both within the district and in the larger community,” said Denver Public Schools spokesperson Will Jones.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

WESTMINSTER, COLO. – Melissa Blatzer was determined to get her three children caught up on their routine immunizations on a recent Saturday morning at a walk-in clinic in this Denver suburb. It had been about a year since the kids’ last shots, a delay Ms. Blatzer chalked up to the pandemic.

Two-year-old Lincoln Blatzer, in his fleece dinosaur pajamas, waited anxiously in line for his hepatitis A vaccine. His siblings, 14-year-old Nyla Kusumah and 11-year-old Nevan Kusumah, were there for their TDAP, HPV and meningococcal vaccines, plus a COVID-19 shot for Nyla.

“You don’t have to make an appointment and you can take all three at once,” said Ms. Blatzer, who lives several miles away in Commerce City. That convenience outweighed the difficulty of getting everyone up early on a weekend.

Child health experts hope community clinics like this – along with the return to in-person classes, more well-child visits, and the rollout of COVID shots for younger children – can help boost routine childhood immunizations, which dropped during the pandemic. Despite a rebound, immunization rates are still lower than in 2019, and disparities in rates between racial and economic groups, particularly for Black children, have been exacerbated.

“We’re still not back to where we need to be,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Routine immunizations protect children against 16 infectious diseases, including measles, diphtheria and chickenpox, and inhibit transmission to the community.

The rollout of COVID shots for younger kids is an opportunity to catch up on routine vaccinations, said Dr. O’Leary, adding that children can receive these vaccines together. Primary care practices, where many children are likely to receive the COVID shots, usually have other childhood vaccines on hand.

“It’s really important that parents and health care providers work together so that all children are up to date on these recommended vaccines,” said Malini DeSilva, MD, an internist and pediatrician at HealthPartners in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area. “Not only for the child’s health but for our community’s health.”

People were reluctant to come out for routine immunizations at the height of the pandemic, said Karen Miller, an immunization nurse manager for the Denver area’s Tri-County Health Department, which ran the Westminster clinic. National and global data confirm what Ms. Miller saw on the ground.

Global vaccine coverage in children fell from 2019 to 2020, according to a recent study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF. Reasons included reduced access, lack of transportation, worries about COVID exposure and supply chain interruptions, the study said.

Third doses of the DTP vaccine and of the polio vaccine decreased from 86% of all eligible children in 2019 to 83% in 2020, according to the study. Worldwide, 22.7 million children had not had their third dose of DTP in 2020, compared with 19 million in 2019. Three doses are far more effective than one or two at protecting children and communities.

In the United States, researchers who studied 2019 and 2020 data on routine vaccinations in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin found substantial disruptions in vaccination rates during the pandemic that continued into September 2020. For example, the percentage of 7-month-old babies who were up to date on vaccinations decreased from 81% in September 2019 to 74% a year later.

The proportion of Black children up to date on immunizations in almost all age groups was lower than that of children in other racial and ethnic groups. This was most pronounced in those turning 18 months old: Only 41% of Black children that age were caught up on vaccinations in September 2020, compared with 57% of all children at 18 months, said Dr. DeSilva, who led that study.

A CDC study of data from the National Immunization Surveys found that race and ethnicity, poverty, and lack of insurance created the greatest disparities in vaccination rates, and the authors noted that extra efforts are needed to counter the pandemic’s disruptions.

In addition to the problems caused by COVID, Ms. Miller said, competing life priorities like work and school impede families from keeping up with shots. Weekend vaccination clinics can help working parents get their children caught up on routine immunizations while they get a flu or COVID shot. Ms. Miller and O’Leary also said reminders via phone, text or email can boost immunizations.

“Vaccines are so effective that I think it’s easy for families to put immunizations on the back burner because we don’t often hear about these diseases,” she said.

It’s a long and nasty list that includes hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, rubella, rotavirus, pneumococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, human papillomavirus, and meningococcal disease, among others. Even small drops in vaccination coverage can lead to outbreaks. And measles is the perfect example that worries experts, particularly as international travel opens up.

“Measles is among the most contagious diseases known to humankind, meaning that we have to keep very high vaccination coverage to keep it from spreading,” said Dr. O’Leary.

In 2019, 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states in mostly unvaccinated children and adults. Dr. O’Leary said outbreaks in New York City were contained because surrounding areas had high vaccination coverage. But an outbreak in an undervaccinated community still could spread beyond its borders.

In some states a significant number of parents were opposed to routine childhood vaccines even before the pandemic for religious or personal reasons, posing another challenge for health professionals. For example, 87% of Colorado kindergartners were vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella during the 2018-19 school year, one of the nation’s lowest rates.

Those rates bumped up to 91% in 2019-20 but are still below the CDC’s target of 95%.

Dr. O’Leary said he does not see the same level of hesitancy for routine immunizations as for COVID. “There has always been vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusers. But we’ve maintained vaccination rates north of 90% for all routine childhood vaccines for a long time now,” he said.

Dr. DeSilva said the “ripple effects” of missed vaccinations earlier in the pandemic continued into 2021. As children returned to in-person learning this fall, schools may have been the first place families heard about missed vaccinations. Individual states set vaccination requirements, and allowable exemptions, for entry at schools and child care facilities. In 2020, Colorado passed a school entry immunization law that tightened allowable exemptions.

“Schools, where vaccination requirements are generally enforced, are stretched thin for a variety of reasons, including COVID,” said Dr. O’Leary, adding that managing vaccine requirements may be more difficult for some, but not all, schools.

Anayeli Dominguez, 13, was at the Westminster clinic for a Tdap vaccine because her middle school had noticed she was not up to date.

“School nurses play an important role in helping identify students in need of immunizations, and also by connecting families to resources both within the district and in the larger community,” said Denver Public Schools spokesperson Will Jones.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

Religion and masculine ideology remain significant social cultural barriers to sexual health in Hispanic gay or bisexual men, according to new qualitative research presented at the 2021 Association of Nurses in AIDS Care conference. The pilot study also found that these men learned more sexual health information from friends and social networks than from their health care professionals.

“There’s still so much we do not know about cultural factors and the different levels of influence that shape sexual health promotion beliefs among Latinos, but moreover in Latino same-gender–loving men,” lead author Lisvel Matos, MSN, FNP-C, WHNP-BC, a PhD candidate at Duke University’s School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Ms. Matos prefers the term same-gender–loving men (SGLM) over men who have sex with men, as the latter term is more clinical and can be stigmatizing.

In Ms. Matos’ 10 years of working in nursing, she noticed that this lack of understanding about sexual health in Hispanic SGLM impeded culturally relevant interventions in this population. “When we don’t have the evidence to show what’s effective for these populations,” she said, “then we’re kind of working blind.”

To get a better sense of social cultural barriers that influence sexual health, Ms. Matos and colleagues conducted 60- to 75-minute interviews with Hispanic SGLM through the secure web conferencing app WebEx from October 2020 to October 2021. The study used the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual health: “a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity.” The pilot study included 15 individuals, 8 of whom were born outside of the United States. The mean age of participants was 31.4 years, and 47% reported being single and sexually active. 93% of participants said they were aware of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and 47% reported using PrEP.

Ms. Matos identified three common themes in barriers to sexual health in these men: sexual silence, religion, and machismo, a term meaning aggressive masculine pride and patriarchal ideas of manhood. “Because of social constructs, because of what it meant to be a man, [sexual health] was a very difficult subject in adolescence,” said one participant in a quote included on the poster. “I definitely believe in Christianity, and I think that has affected my sexual preference,” said another quoted individual. “It came into that Catholic guilt where you always feel bad.”

More than half of the study participants reported not having access to health care at one time in their life, because of lack of insurance or other factors such as feeling uncomfortable or even dehumanized by health care professionals. Most men said they learned about sexual health, including PrEP, from dating apps like Grindr or friend-based social media platforms rather than in care settings. Ms. Matos, who presented the study at the conference, received the Student Poster Research Award for her work.

The findings are “a good reminder for providers” that these barriers, which have been identified for decades, are still major impediments to sexual health in Hispanic SGLM, both individually and at the clinic level, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, said in an interview. He was not involved with the work. “We need to be in a space to normalize their attractions, behaviors, and identities and then help them to be more confident about it,” he noted.

Self-confidence as well as trust in sexual partners and health providers were factors that helped these men overcome this negative messaging and sociocultural stigmas, Ms. Matos found.

“The fact that [the researchers] have individual level data about the experiences of this group of men can inform how we develop clinic-level structures that can, for example, promote trust with the provider,” added Kamila Alexander, PhD, MPH, RN, an assistant professor and associate director of PhD and postdoctoral programs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Nursing, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who was not involved with the research, added that the small study is a good starting point to better inform culturally relevant care for populations marginalized by society, like Hispanic SGLM, and to challenge ingrained stereotypes around religion, masculinity, and sexuality. The researchers “highlighted these intersectional stigmas that have a lot to do with structural factors,” she said, “and those things are really ripe for intervention.”

Ms. Matos, Dr. Flores, and Dr. Alexander disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Religion and masculine ideology remain significant social cultural barriers to sexual health in Hispanic gay or bisexual men, according to new qualitative research presented at the 2021 Association of Nurses in AIDS Care conference. The pilot study also found that these men learned more sexual health information from friends and social networks than from their health care professionals.

“There’s still so much we do not know about cultural factors and the different levels of influence that shape sexual health promotion beliefs among Latinos, but moreover in Latino same-gender–loving men,” lead author Lisvel Matos, MSN, FNP-C, WHNP-BC, a PhD candidate at Duke University’s School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Ms. Matos prefers the term same-gender–loving men (SGLM) over men who have sex with men, as the latter term is more clinical and can be stigmatizing.

In Ms. Matos’ 10 years of working in nursing, she noticed that this lack of understanding about sexual health in Hispanic SGLM impeded culturally relevant interventions in this population. “When we don’t have the evidence to show what’s effective for these populations,” she said, “then we’re kind of working blind.”

To get a better sense of social cultural barriers that influence sexual health, Ms. Matos and colleagues conducted 60- to 75-minute interviews with Hispanic SGLM through the secure web conferencing app WebEx from October 2020 to October 2021. The study used the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual health: “a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity.” The pilot study included 15 individuals, 8 of whom were born outside of the United States. The mean age of participants was 31.4 years, and 47% reported being single and sexually active. 93% of participants said they were aware of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and 47% reported using PrEP.

Ms. Matos identified three common themes in barriers to sexual health in these men: sexual silence, religion, and machismo, a term meaning aggressive masculine pride and patriarchal ideas of manhood. “Because of social constructs, because of what it meant to be a man, [sexual health] was a very difficult subject in adolescence,” said one participant in a quote included on the poster. “I definitely believe in Christianity, and I think that has affected my sexual preference,” said another quoted individual. “It came into that Catholic guilt where you always feel bad.”

More than half of the study participants reported not having access to health care at one time in their life, because of lack of insurance or other factors such as feeling uncomfortable or even dehumanized by health care professionals. Most men said they learned about sexual health, including PrEP, from dating apps like Grindr or friend-based social media platforms rather than in care settings. Ms. Matos, who presented the study at the conference, received the Student Poster Research Award for her work.

The findings are “a good reminder for providers” that these barriers, which have been identified for decades, are still major impediments to sexual health in Hispanic SGLM, both individually and at the clinic level, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, said in an interview. He was not involved with the work. “We need to be in a space to normalize their attractions, behaviors, and identities and then help them to be more confident about it,” he noted.

Self-confidence as well as trust in sexual partners and health providers were factors that helped these men overcome this negative messaging and sociocultural stigmas, Ms. Matos found.

“The fact that [the researchers] have individual level data about the experiences of this group of men can inform how we develop clinic-level structures that can, for example, promote trust with the provider,” added Kamila Alexander, PhD, MPH, RN, an assistant professor and associate director of PhD and postdoctoral programs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Nursing, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who was not involved with the research, added that the small study is a good starting point to better inform culturally relevant care for populations marginalized by society, like Hispanic SGLM, and to challenge ingrained stereotypes around religion, masculinity, and sexuality. The researchers “highlighted these intersectional stigmas that have a lot to do with structural factors,” she said, “and those things are really ripe for intervention.”

Ms. Matos, Dr. Flores, and Dr. Alexander disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Religion and masculine ideology remain significant social cultural barriers to sexual health in Hispanic gay or bisexual men, according to new qualitative research presented at the 2021 Association of Nurses in AIDS Care conference. The pilot study also found that these men learned more sexual health information from friends and social networks than from their health care professionals.

“There’s still so much we do not know about cultural factors and the different levels of influence that shape sexual health promotion beliefs among Latinos, but moreover in Latino same-gender–loving men,” lead author Lisvel Matos, MSN, FNP-C, WHNP-BC, a PhD candidate at Duke University’s School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Ms. Matos prefers the term same-gender–loving men (SGLM) over men who have sex with men, as the latter term is more clinical and can be stigmatizing.

In Ms. Matos’ 10 years of working in nursing, she noticed that this lack of understanding about sexual health in Hispanic SGLM impeded culturally relevant interventions in this population. “When we don’t have the evidence to show what’s effective for these populations,” she said, “then we’re kind of working blind.”

To get a better sense of social cultural barriers that influence sexual health, Ms. Matos and colleagues conducted 60- to 75-minute interviews with Hispanic SGLM through the secure web conferencing app WebEx from October 2020 to October 2021. The study used the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual health: “a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity.” The pilot study included 15 individuals, 8 of whom were born outside of the United States. The mean age of participants was 31.4 years, and 47% reported being single and sexually active. 93% of participants said they were aware of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and 47% reported using PrEP.

Ms. Matos identified three common themes in barriers to sexual health in these men: sexual silence, religion, and machismo, a term meaning aggressive masculine pride and patriarchal ideas of manhood. “Because of social constructs, because of what it meant to be a man, [sexual health] was a very difficult subject in adolescence,” said one participant in a quote included on the poster. “I definitely believe in Christianity, and I think that has affected my sexual preference,” said another quoted individual. “It came into that Catholic guilt where you always feel bad.”

More than half of the study participants reported not having access to health care at one time in their life, because of lack of insurance or other factors such as feeling uncomfortable or even dehumanized by health care professionals. Most men said they learned about sexual health, including PrEP, from dating apps like Grindr or friend-based social media platforms rather than in care settings. Ms. Matos, who presented the study at the conference, received the Student Poster Research Award for her work.

The findings are “a good reminder for providers” that these barriers, which have been identified for decades, are still major impediments to sexual health in Hispanic SGLM, both individually and at the clinic level, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, said in an interview. He was not involved with the work. “We need to be in a space to normalize their attractions, behaviors, and identities and then help them to be more confident about it,” he noted.

Self-confidence as well as trust in sexual partners and health providers were factors that helped these men overcome this negative messaging and sociocultural stigmas, Ms. Matos found.

“The fact that [the researchers] have individual level data about the experiences of this group of men can inform how we develop clinic-level structures that can, for example, promote trust with the provider,” added Kamila Alexander, PhD, MPH, RN, an assistant professor and associate director of PhD and postdoctoral programs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Nursing, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who was not involved with the research, added that the small study is a good starting point to better inform culturally relevant care for populations marginalized by society, like Hispanic SGLM, and to challenge ingrained stereotypes around religion, masculinity, and sexuality. The researchers “highlighted these intersectional stigmas that have a lot to do with structural factors,” she said, “and those things are really ripe for intervention.”

Ms. Matos, Dr. Flores, and Dr. Alexander disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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