Infectious Disease Practitioner

TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.

Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.  

Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.

No matter the target population, new options are needed that fit more seamlessly into people’s sex lives, said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.

For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.

In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.

Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.

During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”

“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
 

Three current options

The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.

• F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
• F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
• CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)

There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.

The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
 

An active pipeline

There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.

These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”

Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.

“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.

A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.

“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
 

Longer lasting protection?

All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”

Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.

“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
 

On-demand PrEP

The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”

On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.

Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”

A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
 

‘Extremely excited’

Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”

“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.

Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”

“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.

More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.

For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.

Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.  

Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.

No matter the target population, new options are needed that fit more seamlessly into people’s sex lives, said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.

For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.

In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.

Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.

During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”

“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
 

Three current options

The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.

• F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
• F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
• CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)

There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.

The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
 

An active pipeline

There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.

These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”

Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.

“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.

A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.

“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
 

Longer lasting protection?

All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”

Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.

“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
 

On-demand PrEP

The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”

On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.

Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”

A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
 

‘Extremely excited’

Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”

“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.

Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”

“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.

More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.

For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.

Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.  

Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.

No matter the target population, new options are needed that fit more seamlessly into people’s sex lives, said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.

For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.

In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.

Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.

During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”

“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
 

Three current options

The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.

• F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
• F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
• CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)

There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.

The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
 

An active pipeline

There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.

These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”

Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.

“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.

A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.

“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
 

Longer lasting protection?

All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”

Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.

“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
 

On-demand PrEP

The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”

On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.

Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.

Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”

A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
 

‘Extremely excited’

Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”

“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.

Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”

“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.

More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.

For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

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

People living with HIV (PLWH) had a “mistimed circadian phase” and a shorter night’s sleep compared with HIV-negative individuals with a similar lifestyle, according to findings that suggest both a possible mechanism for increased comorbidities in PLWH and potential solutions.

“It is very well known that sleep problems are common in people living with HIV, and many different reasons for this have been proposed,” coauthor Malcolm von Schantz, PhD, professor of chronobiology at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview. “But the novelty of our findings is the observation of delayed circadian rhythms.”

The mistimed circadian phase in PLWH is linked to later sleep onset and earlier waking and has “important potential implications” for the health and well-being of PLWH, wrote senior author Karine Scheuermaier, MD, from the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and coauthors.

Until now, research on sleep in HIV has focused primarily on its homeostatic components, such as sleep duration and staging, rather than on circadian-related aspects, they noted.

“If the lifestyle‐independent circadian misalignment observed in the current study is confirmed to be a constant feature of chronic HIV infection, then it may be a mediator both of poorer sleep health and of poorer physical health in PLWH, which could potentially be alleviated through light therapy or chronobiotic medication or supplements,” they suggested.
 

HIV endemic in study population

The study analyzed a random sample of 187 participants (36 with HIV and 151 without) in the HAALSI (Health and Ageing in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa) study, which is part of the Agincourt Health and Socio-demographic Surveillance System.

The study population ranged in age from 45 to 93 years, with an average age of 60.6 years in the HIV-positive group and 68.2 years in the HIV-negative group. Demographic data, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score, and valid actigraphy (measured with an accelerometer for 14 consecutive days) were available for 172 participants (18% with HIV). A subgroup of 51 participants (22% with HIV) also had valid dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) data, a sensitive measure of the internal circadian clock. DLMO was measured for a minimum of 5 consecutive days with hourly saliva sampling between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. while sitting in a dimly lit room.

In 36 participants (16% with HIV) with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, circadian phase angle of entrainment was calculated by subtracting DLMO time from habitual sleep-onset time obtained from actigraphy.

After adjustment for age and sex, the study found a slightly later sleep onset (adjusted average delay of 10 minutes), earlier awakening (adjusted average advance of 10 minutes), and shorter sleep duration in PLWH compared with HIV-negative participants.

At the same time, melatonin production in PLWH started more than an hour later on average than in HIV-negative participants, “with half of the HIV+ group having an earlier habitual sleep onset than DLMO time” the authors wrote. In a subgroup of 36 participants with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, the median circadian phase angle of entrainment was smaller in PLWH (–6 minutes vs. +1 hour 25 minutes in the HIV-negative group).

“Collectively, our data suggest that the sleep phase occurred earlier than what would be biologically optimal among the HIV+ participants,” they added.
 

Asynchrony between bedtime and circadian time

“Ideally, with this delayed timing of circadian phase, they should have delayed their sleep phase (sleep timing) by an equal amount to be sleeping at their optimal biological time,” Dr. Scheuermaier explained. “Their sleep onset was delayed by 12 minutes (statistically significant but biologically not that much) while their circadian phase was delayed by more than an hour.”

Possible consequences of a smaller phase angle of entrainment include difficulty in initiating and maintaining sleep, the authors wrote. “The shorter, potentially mistimed sleep relative to the endogenous circadian cycle observed in this study provides objectively measured evidence supporting the abundant previous subjective reports of poor sleep quality and insomnia in PLWH.”

They noted that a strength of their study is that participants were recruited from rural South Africa, where HIV prevalence is not confined to the so-called “high-risk” groups of gay men, other men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers.

“Behavioral factors associated with belonging to one or more of these groups would be strong potential confounders for studies of sleep and circadian phase,” they explained. “By contrast, in rural southern Africa, the epidemic has been less demographically discriminating ... There are no notable differences in lifestyle between the HIV– and HIV+ individuals in this study. The members of this aging population are mostly beyond retirement age, living quiet, rural lives supported by government remittances and subsistence farming.”
 

Direct evidence warrants further study

The study is “unique” in that it provides “the first direct evidence for potential circadian disturbances in PWLH,” agreed Peng Li, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“The assessment of dim light melatonin onset in PLWH is a strength of the study; together with actigraphy-based sleep onset assessment, it provides a measure for the phase angle of entrainment,” said Dr. Li, who is research director of the medical biodynamics program, division of sleep and circadian disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

But actigraphy has limitations that affect the interpretation of the results, he told this news organization.

“Without the help of sleep diaries, low specificity in assessing sleep using actigraphy has been consistently reported,” he said. “The low specificity means a significant overestimation of sleep. This lowers the value of the reported sleep readouts and limits the validity of sleep onset estimation, especially considering that differences in sleep measures between the two groups are relatively small, compromising the clinical meaning.”

Additionally, he explained that it’s not clear whether sleep onset in the study participants was spontaneous or was “forced” to accommodate routines. “This is a limitation in field study as compared with in-lab studies,” he said.

Dr. Li also pointed to the small sample size and younger age of PLWH, suggesting the study might have benefited from a matched design. Finally, he said the study did not examine gender differences.

“In the general population, it is known that females usually have advanced circadian phase compared to males. ... More rigorous design and analyses based on sex/gender especially in this often-marginalized population are warranted to better inform HIV-specific or general clinical guidelines.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors did not mention any competing interests. Dr. Li reported grant support from the BrightFocus Foundation. The study is not directly related to this paper. He also receives grant support from the NIH through a Departmental Award, Harvard University Center for AIDS Research and a Pilot Project, HIV and Aging Research Consortium. The projects are on circadian disturbances and cognitive performance in PLWH.

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

People living with HIV (PLWH) had a “mistimed circadian phase” and a shorter night’s sleep compared with HIV-negative individuals with a similar lifestyle, according to findings that suggest both a possible mechanism for increased comorbidities in PLWH and potential solutions.

“It is very well known that sleep problems are common in people living with HIV, and many different reasons for this have been proposed,” coauthor Malcolm von Schantz, PhD, professor of chronobiology at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview. “But the novelty of our findings is the observation of delayed circadian rhythms.”

The mistimed circadian phase in PLWH is linked to later sleep onset and earlier waking and has “important potential implications” for the health and well-being of PLWH, wrote senior author Karine Scheuermaier, MD, from the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and coauthors.

Until now, research on sleep in HIV has focused primarily on its homeostatic components, such as sleep duration and staging, rather than on circadian-related aspects, they noted.

“If the lifestyle‐independent circadian misalignment observed in the current study is confirmed to be a constant feature of chronic HIV infection, then it may be a mediator both of poorer sleep health and of poorer physical health in PLWH, which could potentially be alleviated through light therapy or chronobiotic medication or supplements,” they suggested.
 

HIV endemic in study population

The study analyzed a random sample of 187 participants (36 with HIV and 151 without) in the HAALSI (Health and Ageing in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa) study, which is part of the Agincourt Health and Socio-demographic Surveillance System.

The study population ranged in age from 45 to 93 years, with an average age of 60.6 years in the HIV-positive group and 68.2 years in the HIV-negative group. Demographic data, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score, and valid actigraphy (measured with an accelerometer for 14 consecutive days) were available for 172 participants (18% with HIV). A subgroup of 51 participants (22% with HIV) also had valid dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) data, a sensitive measure of the internal circadian clock. DLMO was measured for a minimum of 5 consecutive days with hourly saliva sampling between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. while sitting in a dimly lit room.

In 36 participants (16% with HIV) with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, circadian phase angle of entrainment was calculated by subtracting DLMO time from habitual sleep-onset time obtained from actigraphy.

After adjustment for age and sex, the study found a slightly later sleep onset (adjusted average delay of 10 minutes), earlier awakening (adjusted average advance of 10 minutes), and shorter sleep duration in PLWH compared with HIV-negative participants.

At the same time, melatonin production in PLWH started more than an hour later on average than in HIV-negative participants, “with half of the HIV+ group having an earlier habitual sleep onset than DLMO time” the authors wrote. In a subgroup of 36 participants with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, the median circadian phase angle of entrainment was smaller in PLWH (–6 minutes vs. +1 hour 25 minutes in the HIV-negative group).

“Collectively, our data suggest that the sleep phase occurred earlier than what would be biologically optimal among the HIV+ participants,” they added.
 

Asynchrony between bedtime and circadian time

“Ideally, with this delayed timing of circadian phase, they should have delayed their sleep phase (sleep timing) by an equal amount to be sleeping at their optimal biological time,” Dr. Scheuermaier explained. “Their sleep onset was delayed by 12 minutes (statistically significant but biologically not that much) while their circadian phase was delayed by more than an hour.”

Possible consequences of a smaller phase angle of entrainment include difficulty in initiating and maintaining sleep, the authors wrote. “The shorter, potentially mistimed sleep relative to the endogenous circadian cycle observed in this study provides objectively measured evidence supporting the abundant previous subjective reports of poor sleep quality and insomnia in PLWH.”

They noted that a strength of their study is that participants were recruited from rural South Africa, where HIV prevalence is not confined to the so-called “high-risk” groups of gay men, other men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers.

“Behavioral factors associated with belonging to one or more of these groups would be strong potential confounders for studies of sleep and circadian phase,” they explained. “By contrast, in rural southern Africa, the epidemic has been less demographically discriminating ... There are no notable differences in lifestyle between the HIV– and HIV+ individuals in this study. The members of this aging population are mostly beyond retirement age, living quiet, rural lives supported by government remittances and subsistence farming.”
 

Direct evidence warrants further study

The study is “unique” in that it provides “the first direct evidence for potential circadian disturbances in PWLH,” agreed Peng Li, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“The assessment of dim light melatonin onset in PLWH is a strength of the study; together with actigraphy-based sleep onset assessment, it provides a measure for the phase angle of entrainment,” said Dr. Li, who is research director of the medical biodynamics program, division of sleep and circadian disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

But actigraphy has limitations that affect the interpretation of the results, he told this news organization.

“Without the help of sleep diaries, low specificity in assessing sleep using actigraphy has been consistently reported,” he said. “The low specificity means a significant overestimation of sleep. This lowers the value of the reported sleep readouts and limits the validity of sleep onset estimation, especially considering that differences in sleep measures between the two groups are relatively small, compromising the clinical meaning.”

Additionally, he explained that it’s not clear whether sleep onset in the study participants was spontaneous or was “forced” to accommodate routines. “This is a limitation in field study as compared with in-lab studies,” he said.

Dr. Li also pointed to the small sample size and younger age of PLWH, suggesting the study might have benefited from a matched design. Finally, he said the study did not examine gender differences.

“In the general population, it is known that females usually have advanced circadian phase compared to males. ... More rigorous design and analyses based on sex/gender especially in this often-marginalized population are warranted to better inform HIV-specific or general clinical guidelines.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors did not mention any competing interests. Dr. Li reported grant support from the BrightFocus Foundation. The study is not directly related to this paper. He also receives grant support from the NIH through a Departmental Award, Harvard University Center for AIDS Research and a Pilot Project, HIV and Aging Research Consortium. The projects are on circadian disturbances and cognitive performance in PLWH.

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

People living with HIV (PLWH) had a “mistimed circadian phase” and a shorter night’s sleep compared with HIV-negative individuals with a similar lifestyle, according to findings that suggest both a possible mechanism for increased comorbidities in PLWH and potential solutions.

“It is very well known that sleep problems are common in people living with HIV, and many different reasons for this have been proposed,” coauthor Malcolm von Schantz, PhD, professor of chronobiology at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview. “But the novelty of our findings is the observation of delayed circadian rhythms.”

The mistimed circadian phase in PLWH is linked to later sleep onset and earlier waking and has “important potential implications” for the health and well-being of PLWH, wrote senior author Karine Scheuermaier, MD, from the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and coauthors.

Until now, research on sleep in HIV has focused primarily on its homeostatic components, such as sleep duration and staging, rather than on circadian-related aspects, they noted.

“If the lifestyle‐independent circadian misalignment observed in the current study is confirmed to be a constant feature of chronic HIV infection, then it may be a mediator both of poorer sleep health and of poorer physical health in PLWH, which could potentially be alleviated through light therapy or chronobiotic medication or supplements,” they suggested.
 

HIV endemic in study population

The study analyzed a random sample of 187 participants (36 with HIV and 151 without) in the HAALSI (Health and Ageing in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa) study, which is part of the Agincourt Health and Socio-demographic Surveillance System.

The study population ranged in age from 45 to 93 years, with an average age of 60.6 years in the HIV-positive group and 68.2 years in the HIV-negative group. Demographic data, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score, and valid actigraphy (measured with an accelerometer for 14 consecutive days) were available for 172 participants (18% with HIV). A subgroup of 51 participants (22% with HIV) also had valid dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) data, a sensitive measure of the internal circadian clock. DLMO was measured for a minimum of 5 consecutive days with hourly saliva sampling between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. while sitting in a dimly lit room.

In 36 participants (16% with HIV) with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, circadian phase angle of entrainment was calculated by subtracting DLMO time from habitual sleep-onset time obtained from actigraphy.

After adjustment for age and sex, the study found a slightly later sleep onset (adjusted average delay of 10 minutes), earlier awakening (adjusted average advance of 10 minutes), and shorter sleep duration in PLWH compared with HIV-negative participants.

At the same time, melatonin production in PLWH started more than an hour later on average than in HIV-negative participants, “with half of the HIV+ group having an earlier habitual sleep onset than DLMO time” the authors wrote. In a subgroup of 36 participants with both valid actigraphy and DLMO data, the median circadian phase angle of entrainment was smaller in PLWH (–6 minutes vs. +1 hour 25 minutes in the HIV-negative group).

“Collectively, our data suggest that the sleep phase occurred earlier than what would be biologically optimal among the HIV+ participants,” they added.
 

Asynchrony between bedtime and circadian time

“Ideally, with this delayed timing of circadian phase, they should have delayed their sleep phase (sleep timing) by an equal amount to be sleeping at their optimal biological time,” Dr. Scheuermaier explained. “Their sleep onset was delayed by 12 minutes (statistically significant but biologically not that much) while their circadian phase was delayed by more than an hour.”

Possible consequences of a smaller phase angle of entrainment include difficulty in initiating and maintaining sleep, the authors wrote. “The shorter, potentially mistimed sleep relative to the endogenous circadian cycle observed in this study provides objectively measured evidence supporting the abundant previous subjective reports of poor sleep quality and insomnia in PLWH.”

They noted that a strength of their study is that participants were recruited from rural South Africa, where HIV prevalence is not confined to the so-called “high-risk” groups of gay men, other men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers.

“Behavioral factors associated with belonging to one or more of these groups would be strong potential confounders for studies of sleep and circadian phase,” they explained. “By contrast, in rural southern Africa, the epidemic has been less demographically discriminating ... There are no notable differences in lifestyle between the HIV– and HIV+ individuals in this study. The members of this aging population are mostly beyond retirement age, living quiet, rural lives supported by government remittances and subsistence farming.”
 

Direct evidence warrants further study

The study is “unique” in that it provides “the first direct evidence for potential circadian disturbances in PWLH,” agreed Peng Li, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“The assessment of dim light melatonin onset in PLWH is a strength of the study; together with actigraphy-based sleep onset assessment, it provides a measure for the phase angle of entrainment,” said Dr. Li, who is research director of the medical biodynamics program, division of sleep and circadian disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

But actigraphy has limitations that affect the interpretation of the results, he told this news organization.

“Without the help of sleep diaries, low specificity in assessing sleep using actigraphy has been consistently reported,” he said. “The low specificity means a significant overestimation of sleep. This lowers the value of the reported sleep readouts and limits the validity of sleep onset estimation, especially considering that differences in sleep measures between the two groups are relatively small, compromising the clinical meaning.”

Additionally, he explained that it’s not clear whether sleep onset in the study participants was spontaneous or was “forced” to accommodate routines. “This is a limitation in field study as compared with in-lab studies,” he said.

Dr. Li also pointed to the small sample size and younger age of PLWH, suggesting the study might have benefited from a matched design. Finally, he said the study did not examine gender differences.

“In the general population, it is known that females usually have advanced circadian phase compared to males. ... More rigorous design and analyses based on sex/gender especially in this often-marginalized population are warranted to better inform HIV-specific or general clinical guidelines.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors did not mention any competing interests. Dr. Li reported grant support from the BrightFocus Foundation. The study is not directly related to this paper. He also receives grant support from the NIH through a Departmental Award, Harvard University Center for AIDS Research and a Pilot Project, HIV and Aging Research Consortium. The projects are on circadian disturbances and cognitive performance in PLWH.

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

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.