Teaching Epidemiology Online (Pandemic Edition).

In response to the threat posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many universities are encouraging or requiring online instruction. Teaching an epidemiology course online is different in many respects from teaching in person. In this article, we review specific approaches and strategies related to teaching epidemiology online during the pandemic and beyond, including a discussion of options for course format, grading and assessment approaches, pandemic-related contingencies, and the use of technology. Throughout this article we present practical, epidemiology-specific teaching examples. Moreover, we also examine 1) how the lessons learned about the practice of epidemiology during the pandemic can be integrated into the didactic content of epidemiology training programs and 2) whether epidemiologic pedagogy and teaching strategies should change in the long term, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has served to heighten our awareness of concerns related to student health and safety, as well as issues of accessibility, equity, and inclusion. Our goal is to present a practical overview connecting pandemic-era online teaching with thoughts about the future of epidemiologic instruction.

Telemedicine Use Among People With HIV in 2021: The Hybrid-Care Environment.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use for the care of people with HIV (PWH) significantly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. During 2021, vaccine uptake increased and patients were encouraged to resume in-person care, resulting in a mixture of in-person and telemedicine visits. We studied how different patient populations used telemedicine in this hybrid-care environment. METHODS: Using observational data from patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort, we analyzed all in-person and telemedicine HIV primary care visits completed in an HIV clinic from January 1st, 2021, to December 31st, 2021. We used log-binomial regression to investigate the association between patient characteristics and the probability of completing a telemedicine versus in-person visit and the probability of completing a video versus telephone visit. RESULTS: A total of 5518 visits were completed by 1884 patients; 4282 (77.6%) visits were in-person, 800 (14.5%) by phone, and 436 (7.9%) by video. The relative risk (RR) of completing telemedicine vs. in-person visits was 0.65 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.47, 0.91) for patients age 65 years or older vs. age 20-39 years; 0.84 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.98) for male patients vs. female patients; 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.99) for Black vs. White patients; 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.79) for patients in the highest vs. lowest quartile of Area Deprivation Index; and 1.52 (95% CI: 1.26, 1.84) for patients >15 miles vs. <5 miles from clinic. CONCLUSIONS: In the second year of the pandemic, overall in-person care was used more than telemedicine and significant differences persist across subgroups in telemedicine uptake.

Time Between Viral Loads for People With HIV During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients experienced significant care disruptions, including laboratory monitoring. We investigated changes in the time between viral load (VL) checks for people with HIV (PWH) associated with the pandemic. SETTING AND METHODS: This was an observational analysis of VLs of PWH in routine care at a large subspecialty clinic. At pandemic onset, the clinic temporarily closed its onsite laboratory. The exposure was time period (time varying): prepandemic (January 1, 2019-March 15, 2020); pandemic laboratory closed (March 16-July 12, 2020); and pandemic laboratory open (July 13-December 31, 2020). We estimated time from an index VL to a subsequent VL, stratified by whether the index VL was suppressed (≤200 copies/mL). We also calculated cumulative incidence of a nonsuppressed VL following a suppressed index VL, and of resuppression following a loss of viral suppression. RESULTS: Compared with prepandemic, hazard ratios for next VL check were 0.34 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.37, laboratory-closed) and 0.73 (CI: 0.68 to 0.78, laboratory-open) for suppressed patients, and 0.56 (CI: 0.42 to 0.79, laboratory-closed) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10, laboratory-open) for nonsuppressed patients. The 12-month cumulative incidence of loss of suppression was the same in the pandemic laboratory-open (4%) and prepandemic (4%) period. The hazard of resuppression following the loss of suppression was lower during the pandemic laboratory-open versus the prepandemic period (hazard ratio: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Early pandemic restrictions and laboratory closure significantly delayed VL monitoring. Once the laboratory reopened, nonsuppressed patients resumed normal monitoring. Suppressed patients still had a delay but no significant loss of suppression.

The relationship of alcohol and other drug use during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with or at risk of HIV; A cross-sectional survey of people enrolled in Collaborating Consortium of Cohorts Producing NIDA Opportunities (C3PNO) cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic increased. People living with HIV or at risk for HIV acquisition often have psycho-social and structural barriers or co-occurring substance use making them vulnerable to the adverse effects of alcohol. We describe factors associated with alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic in this group. METHODS: From May 2020 to February 2021, 1984 people enrolled in 6 existing cohort studies completed surveys about alcohol and other drug use during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the past-month prevalence of no alcohol use, low-risk use, and hazardous use. We use multinomial regression to describe factors associated with low-risk or hazardous alcohol use relative to no alcohol use. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of participants reported no alcohol use, 33% low-risk use, and 22% hazardous use in the past 30 days. Cannabis and stimulant use were associated with a higher prevalence of low-risk use relative to no use. Tobacco, stimulant, cannabis use and recent overdose were associated with a higher prevalence of hazardous use relative to no use. Substance use treatment and living with HIV were associated with a lower prevalence of low-risk or hazardous use relative to no use. CONCLUSIONS: Stimulant use was strongly associated with a higher prevalence of hazardous alcohol use while engagement in substance use treatment or living with HIV was associated with a lower prevalence. Ascertaining hazardous alcohol and other drug use, particularly stimulants, in clinical care could identify people at higher risk for adverse outcome and harm reduction counseling.

On the Need to Revitalize Descriptive Epidemiology.

Nearly every introductory epidemiology course begins with a focus on person, place, and time, the key components of descriptive epidemiology. And yet in our experience, introductory epidemiology courses were the last time we spent any significant amount of training time focused on descriptive epidemiology. This gave us the impression that descriptive epidemiology does not suffer from bias and is less impactful than causal epidemiology. Descriptive epidemiology may also suffer from a lack of prestige in academia and may be more difficult to fund. We believe this does a disservice to the field and slows progress towards goals of improving population health and ensuring equity in health. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak and subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic have highlighted the importance of descriptive epidemiology in responding to serious public health crises. In this commentary, we make the case for renewed focus on the importance of descriptive epidemiology in the epidemiology curriculum using SARS-CoV-2 as a motivating example. The framework for error we use in etiological research can be applied in descriptive research to focus on both systematic and random error. We use the current pandemic to illustrate differences between causal and descriptive epidemiology and areas where descriptive epidemiology can have an important impact.

COVID-19 and the HIV continuum in people living with HIV enrolled in Collaborating Consortium of Cohorts Producing NIDA Opportunities (C3PNO) cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the normal delivery of HIV care, altered social support networks, and caused economic insecurity. People with HIV (PWH) are vulnerable to such disruptions, particularly if they have a history of substance use. We describe engagement in care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) for PWH during the pandemic. METHODS: From May 2020 to February 2021, 773 PWH enrolled in 6 existing cohorts completed 1495 surveys about substance use and engagement in HIV care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We described the prevalence and correlates of having missed a visit with an HIV provider in the past month and having missed a dose of ART in the past week. RESULTS: Thirteen percent of people missed an HIV visit in the past month. Missing a visit was associated with unstable housing, food insecurity, anxiety, low resiliency, disruptions to mental health care, and substance use including cigarette smoking, hazardous alcohol use, cocaine, and cannabis use. Nineteen percent of people reported missing at least one dose of ART in the week prior to their survey. Missing a dose of ART was associated with being a man, low resiliency, disruptions to mental health care, cigarette smoking, hazardous alcohol use, cocaine, and cannabis use, and experiencing disruptions to substance use treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants of health, substance use, and disruptions to mental health and substance use treatment were associated with poorer engagement in HIV care. Close attention to continuity of care during times of social disruption is especially critical for PWH.

Telemedicine and visit completion among people with HIV during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic compared with prepandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine became the primary mode of delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the impact of telemedicine on access to care for people with HIV (PWH) by comparing the proportion of PWH engaged in care prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort, a single-center cohort of patients at an urban HIV subspecialty clinic affiliated with an academic center. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the clinic transitioned from in-person to mostly telemedicine visits. We compared patients receiving care in two time periods. The prepandemic period included 2010 people with at least one visit scheduled between 1 September 2019 and 15 March 2020. The pandemic period included 1929 people with at least one visit scheduled between 16 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. We determined the proportion of patients completing at least one of their scheduled visits during each period. RESULTS: Visit completion increased significantly from 88% prepandemic to 91% during the pandemic (P = 0.008). Visit completion improved significantly for patients age 20-39 (82 to 92%, P < 0.001), women (86 to 93%, P < 0.001), Black patients (88 to 91%, P = 0.002) and patients with detectable viremia (77 to 85%, P = 0.06) during the pandemic. Only 29% of people who completed at least one telemedicine visit during the pandemic did so as a video (versus telephone) visit. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic when care was widely delivered via telemedicine, visit completion improved among groups with lower prepandemic engagement but most were limited to telephone visits.

HIV and COVID-19: Intersecting Epidemics With Many Unknowns.

As of July 2020, approximately 6 months into the pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), whether people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) are disproportionately affected remains an unanswered question. Thus far, risk of COVID-19 in people with and without HIV appears similar, but data are sometimes contradictory. Some uncertainty is due to the recency of the emergence of COVID-19 and sparsity of data; some is due to imprecision about what it means for HIV to be a "risk factor" for COVID-19. Forthcoming studies on the risk of COVID-19 to PLWH should differentiate between 1) the unadjusted, excess burden of disease among PLWH to inform surveillance efforts and 2) any excess risk of COVID-19 among PLWH due to biological effects of HIV, independent of comorbidities that confound rather than mediate this effect. PLWH bear a disproportionate burden of alcohol, other drug use, and mental health disorders, as well as other structural vulnerabilities, which might increase their risk of COVID-19. In addition to any direct effects of COVID-19 on the health of PLWH, we need to understand how physical distancing restrictions affect secondary health outcomes and the need for, accessibility of, and impact of alternative modalities of providing ongoing medical, mental health, and substance use treatment that comply with physical distancing restrictions (e.g., telemedicine).