HIV care using differentiated service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cohort study in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

INTRODUCTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest provider of HIV care in the United States. Changes in healthcare delivery became necessary with the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared HIV healthcare delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to a prior similar calendar period. METHODS: We included 27,674 people with HIV (PWH) enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study prior to 1 March 2019, with ≥1 healthcare encounter from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2020 (2019) and/or 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 (2020). We counted monthly general medicine/infectious disease (GM/ID) clinic visits and HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) tests. We determined the percentage with ≥1 clinic visit (in-person vs. telephone/video [virtual]) and ≥1 VL test (detectable vs. suppressed) for 2019 and 2020. Using pharmacy records, we summarized antiretroviral (ARV) medication refill length (<90 vs. ≥90 days) and monthly ARV coverage. RESULTS: Most patients had ≥1 GM/ID visit in 2019 (96%) and 2020 (95%). For 2019, 27% of visits were virtual compared to 64% in 2020. In 2019, 82% had VL measured compared to 74% in 2020. Of those with VL measured, 92% and 91% had suppressed VL in 2019 and 2020. ARV refills for ≥90 days increased from 39% in 2019 to 51% in 2020. ARV coverage was similar for all months of 2019 and 2020 ranging from 76% to 80% except for March 2019 (72%). Women were less likely than men to be on ARVs or to have a VL test in both years. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VA increased the use of virtual visits and longer ARV refills, while maintaining a high percentage of patients with suppressed VL among those with VL measured. Despite decreased in-person services during the pandemic, access to ARVs was not disrupted. More follow-up time is needed to determine whether overall health was impacted by the use of differentiated service delivery and to evaluate whether a long-term shift to increased virtual healthcare could be beneficial, particularly for PWH in rural areas or with transportation barriers. Programmes to increase ARV use and VL testing for women are needed

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates

Background: Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US). Objective: We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US. Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements: Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no). Results: Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532; 55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99]; AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95]; AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78]. Conclusions: Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination; all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution

Usability Testing of the Kidney Score Platform to Enhance Communication About Kidney Disease in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Think-Aloud Study

BackgroundPatient awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is low in part due to suboptimal testing for CKD among those at risk and lack of discussions about kidney disease between patients and clinicians. To bridge these gaps, the National Kidney Foundation developed the Kidney Score Platform, which is a web-based series of tools that includes resources for health care professionals as well as an interactive, dynamic patient-facing component that includes a brief questionnaire about risk factors for kidney disease, individualized assessment of risk for developing CKD, and self-management tools to manage one’s kidney disease. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to perform usability testing of the patient component of the Kidney Score platform among veterans with and at risk for kidney disease and among clinicians working as primary care providers in Veterans Affairs administration. MethodsThink-aloud exercises were conducted, during which participants (veterans and clinicians) engaged with the platform while verbalizing their thoughts and making their perceptions, reasonings, and decision points explicit. A usability facilitator observed participants’ behaviors and probed selectively to clarify their comprehension of the tool’s instructions, content, and overall functionality. Thematic analysis on the audio-recording transcripts was performed, focusing on positive attributes, negative comments, and areas that required facilitator involvement. ResultsVeterans (N=18) were 78% (14/18) male with a mean age of 58.1 years. Two-thirds (12/18) were of non-White race/ethnicity, 28% (5/18) had laboratory evidence of CKD without a formal diagnosis, and 50% (9/18) carried a diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes. Clinicians (N=19) were 29% (5/17) male, 30% (5/17) of non-White race/ethnicity, and had a mean of 17 (range 4-32) years of experience. Veterans and clinicians easily navigated the online tool and appreciated the personalized results page as well as the inclusion of infographics to deliver key educational messages. Three major themes related to content and communication about risk for CKD emerged from the think-aloud exercises: (1) tension between lay and medical terminology when discussing kidney disease and diagnostic tests, (2) importance of linking general information to concrete self-management actions, and (3) usefulness of the tool as an adjunct to the office visit to prepare for patient-clinician communication. Importantly, these themes were consistent among interviews involving both veterans and clinicians. ConclusionsVeterans and clinicians both thought that the Kidney Score Platform would successfully promote communication and discussion about kidney disease in primary care settings. Tension between using medical terminology that is used regularly by clinicians versus lay terminology to promote CKD awareness was a key challenge, and knowledge of this can inform the development of future CKD educational materials

SARS-CoV-2 detection in setting of viral swabs scarcity: Are MRSA swabs and viral swabs equivalent?

BackgroundThe global pandemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has resulted in unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems. One barrier to widespread testing has been a paucity of traditional respiratory viral swab collection kits relative to the demand. Whether other sample collection kits, such as widely available MRSA nasal swabs can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 is unknown.MethodsWe compared simultaneous nasal MRSA swabs (COPAN ESwabs ® 480C flocked nasal swab in 1mL of liquid Amies medium) and virals wabs (BD H192(07) flexible mini-tip flocked nasopharyngeal swabs in 3mL Universal Transport Medium) for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing using Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay on patients over a 4-day period. When the results were discordant, the viral swab sample was run again on the Cepheid Xpert Xpress ® SARS-CoV-2 assay.ResultsOf the 81 included samples, there were 19 positives and 62 negatives in viral media and 18 positives and 63 negative in the MRSA swabs. Amongst all included samples, there was concordance between the COPAN ESwabs ® 480C and the viral swabs in 78 (96.3%).ConclusionWe found a high rate of concordance in test results between COPAN ESwabs ® 480C in Amies solution and BD H192(07) nasopharyngeal swabs in in 3 mL of Universal Viral Transport medium viral media. Clinicians and laboratories should feel better informed and assured using COPAN ESwabs ® 480C to help in the diagnosis of COVID-19

Identification and Management of Overweight and Obesity by Internal Medicine Residents

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess how frequently Internal Medicine residents identify and manage overweight and obese patients and to determine patient characteristics associated with identification and management of overweight compared with obesity. DESIGN: A cross-sectional medical record review. PATIENTS: Four hundred and twenty-four overweight or obese primary care patients from 2 Internal Medicine resident clinics in Connecticut. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included the frequency with which obese and overweight patients were identified as such by their resident physicians, patient demographics, and co-morbid illnesses, as well as use of management strategies for excess weight. RESULTS: In this population of obese and overweight patients, obese patients were identified and treated more often compared with overweight patients (76/246%, 30.9% vs 12/178%, 7.3% for identification, P=.001, and 59/246%, 24.0% vs 11/178%, 6.2% for treatment, P=.001). Overall, only 70/424 (17%) of patients received any form of management. Only higher body mass index (BMI) (BMI≥30 kg/m(2)compared with BMI 25–29.9 kg/m(2)) was independently associated with identification of overweight or obesity (odds ratio 7.51%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.76 to 15.02) or with any management for excess weight (odds ratio 4.79%, 95% CI 2.44 to 9.42). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Internal Medicine residents markedly underrecognize and undertreat overweight and obesity