Ob.Gyn. News

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN 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.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN 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.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN 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.

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
 

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
 

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.