Prevalence of Testing for Diabetes Among US Adults With Overweight or Obesity, 2016-2019.

Introduction: Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every 3 years for abnormal blood glucose among adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity. Using IQVIA Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records, we estimated the proportion of adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity who received blood glucose testing within 3 years from baseline in 2016. Methods: We identified 1,338,509 adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity in 2016 and without pre-existing diabetes. We included adults whose records were present in the data set for at least 2 years before their index body mass index (BMI) in 2016 and 3 years after the index BMI (2017-2019), during which we examined the occurrence of blood glucose testing. We calculated the unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing. Results: The unadjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing was 33.4% when it was defined as having a hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose measure. The unadjusted prevalence was 74.3% when we expanded the definition of testing to include random plasma glucose and unspecified glucose measures. Adults with obesity were more likely to receive the test than those with overweight. Men (vs women) and adults aged 50 to 59 years (vs other age groups) had higher testing rates. Conclusion: Our findings could inform clinical and public health promotion efforts to improve screening for blood glucose levels among adults with overweight or obesity.

Clinical performance and health equity implications of the American Diabetes Association's 2023 screening recommendation for prediabetes and diabetes.

Introduction: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) starting at age 35, or younger than 35 years among adults with overweight or obesity and other risk factors. Diabetes risk differs by sex, race, and ethnicity, but performance of the recommendation in these sociodemographic subgroups is unknown. Methods: Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2015-March 2020) were analyzed from 5,287 nonpregnant US adults without diagnosed diabetes. Screening eligibility was based on age, measured body mass index, and the presence of diabetes risk factors. Dysglycemia was defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100mg/dL (≥5.6 mmol/L) or haemoglobin A1c ≥5.7% (≥39mmol/mol). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the ADA screening criteria were examined by sex, race, and ethnicity. Results: An estimated 83.1% (95% CI=81.2-84.7) of US adults were eligible for screening according to the 2023 ADA recommendation. Overall, ADA's screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity [95.0% (95% CI=92.7-96.6)] and low specificity [27.1% (95% CI=24.5-29.9)], which did not differ by race or ethnicity. Sensitivity was higher among women [97.8% (95% CI=96.6-98.6)] than men [92.4% (95% CI=88.3-95.1)]. Racial and ethnic differences in sensitivity and specificity among men were statistically significant (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). Among women, guideline performance did not differ by race and ethnicity. Discussion: The ADA screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity for all groups and was marginally higher in women than men. Racial and ethnic differences in guideline performance among men were small and unlikely to have a significant impact on health equity. Future research could examine adoption of this recommendation in practice and examine its effects on treatment and clinical outcomes by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Trends in Preventive Care Services Among U.S. Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes, 2008-2020.

OBJECTIVE: Preventive care services are important to prevent or delay complications associated with diabetes. We report trends in receipt of six American Diabetes Association-recommended preventive care services during 2008-2020. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used 2008-2020 data from the cross-sectional Medical Expenditures Panel Survey to calculate the proportion of U.S. adults ≥18 years of age with diagnosed diabetes who reported receiving preventive care services, overall and by subpopulation (n = 25,616). We used joinpoint regression to identify trends during 2008-2019. The six services completed in the past year included at least one dental examination, dilated-eye examination, foot examination, and cholesterol test; at least two A1C tests, and an influenza vaccine. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2020, proportions of U.S. adults with diabetes receiving any individual preventive care service ranged from 32.6% to 89.9%. From 2008 to 2019, overall trends in preventive services among these adults were flat except for an increase in influenza vaccination (average annual percent change: 2.6% [95% CI 1.1%, 4.2%]). Trend analysis of subgroups was heterogeneous: influenza vaccination and A1C testing showed improvements among several subgroups, whereas cholesterol testing (patients aged 45-64 years; less than a high school education; Medicaid insurance) and dental visits (uninsured) declined. In 2020, 8.2% (95% CI 4.5%, 11.9%) of those with diabetes received none of the recommended preventive care services. CONCLUSIONS: Other than influenza vaccination, we observed no improvement in preventive care service use among U.S. adults with diabetes. These data highlight services and specific subgroups that could be targeted to improve preventive care among adults with diabetes.

State-Specific Prevalence of Depression Among Adults With and Without Diabetes - United States, 2011-2019.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019 among US adults, 1 in 9 had diagnosed diabetes and 1 in 5 had diagnosed depression. Since these conditions frequently coexist, compounding their health and economic burden, we examined state-specific trends in depression prevalence among US adults with and without diagnosed diabetes. METHODS: We used data from the 2011 through 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to evaluate self-reported diabetes and depression prevalence. Joinpoint regression estimated state-level trends in depression prevalence by diabetes status. RESULTS: In 2019, the overall prevalence of depression in US adults with and without diabetes was 29.2% (95% CI, 27.8%-30.6%) and 17.9% (95% CI, 17.6%-18.1%), respectively. From 2011 to 2019, the depression prevalence was relatively stable for adults with diabetes (28.6% versus 29.2%) but increased for those without diabetes from 15.5% to 17.9% (average annual percent change [APC] over the 9-year period = 1.6%, P = .015). The prevalence of depression was consistently more than 10 percentage points higher among adults with diabetes than those without diabetes. The APC showed a significant increase in some states (Illinois: 5.9%, Kansas: 3.5%) and a significant decrease in others (Arizona: -5.1%, Florida: -4.0%, Colorado: -3.4%, Washington: -0.9%). In 2019, although it varied by state, the depression prevalence among adults with diabetes was highest in states with a higher diabetes burden such as Kentucky (47.9%), West Virginia (47.0%), and Maine (41.5%). CONCLUSION: US adults with diabetes are more likely to report prevalent depression compared with adults without diabetes. These findings highlight the importance of screening and monitoring for depression as a potential complication among adults with diabetes.

Diabetes Prevalence and Incidence Inequality Trends Among U.S. Adults, 2008-2021.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined national trends in age, sex, racial and ethnic, and socioeconomic inequalities for diagnosed diabetes prevalence and incidence among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2021. METHODS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) were from the National Health Interview Survey (2008-2021). The annual between-group variance (BGV) for sex, race, and ethnicity; and the slope index of inequality (SII) for age, education, and poverty-to-income ratio along with the average annual percentage change (AAPC) were estimated in 2023 to assess trends in inequalities over time in diabetes prevalence and incidence. For BGV and SII, a value of 0 represents no inequality, whereas a value further from 0 represents greater inequality. RESULTS: On average over time, poverty-to-income ratio inequalities in diabetes prevalence worsened (SII= -8.24 in 2008 and -9.80 in 2021; AAPC for SII= -1.90%, p=0.003), whereas inequalities in incidence for age (SII=17.60 in 2008 and 8.85 in 2021; AAPC for SII= -6.47%, p<0.001), sex (BGV=0.09 in 2008, 2.05 in 2009, 1.24 in 2010, and 0.27 in 2021; AAPC for BGV= -12.34%, p=0.002), racial and ethnic (BGV=4.80 in 2008 and 2.17 in 2021; AAPC for BGV= -10.59%, p=0.010), and education (SII= -9.89 in 2008 and -2.20 in 2021; AAPC for SII=8.27%, p=0.001) groups improved. CONCLUSIONS: From 2008 to 2021, age, sex, racial and ethnic, and education inequalities in the incidence of diagnosed diabetes improved but persisted. Income-related diabetes prevalence inequalities worsened over time. To close these gaps, future research could focus on identifying the factors driving these trends, including the contribution of morbidity and mortality.

Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes: Clinical Performance and Implications for Health Equity.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prediabetes and diabetes screening for asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity, lowering the age from 40 years in its 2015 recommendation. The USPSTF suggested considering earlier screening in racial and ethnic groups with high diabetes risk at younger ages or lower BMI. This study examined the clinical performance of these USPSTF screening recommendations as well as alternative age and BMI cutoffs in the U.S. adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity. METHODS: Nationally representative data were collected from 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes in January 2017-March 2020 and analyzed from 2021 to 2022. Screening eligibility was based on age and measured BMI. Collectively, prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes were defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL or hemoglobin A1c ≥5.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of alternate screening criteria were examined overall, and by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The 2021 criteria exhibited marginally higher sensitivity (58.6%, 95% CI=55.5, 61.6 vs 52.9%, 95% CI=49.7, 56.0) and lower specificity (69.3%, 95% CI=65.7, 72.2 vs 76.4%, 95% CI=73.3, 79.2) than the 2015 criteria overall, and within each racial and ethnic group. Screening at lower age and BMI thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable performance across all racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 2021 USPSTF screening criteria will identify more adults with prediabetes and diabetes in all racial and ethnic groups than the 2015 criteria. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years exhibited even higher sensitivity and performed most similarly by race and ethnicity, which may further improve early detection of prediabetes and diabetes in diverse populations.

A New Type 2 Diabetes Microsimulation Model to Estimate Long-Term Health Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a microsimulation model to estimate the health effects, costs, and cost-effectiveness of public health and clinical interventions for preventing/managing type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We combined newly developed equations for complications, mortality, risk factor progression, patient utility, and cost-all based on US studies-in a microsimulation model. We performed internal and external validation of the model. To demonstrate the model's utility, we predicted remaining life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime medical cost for a representative cohort of 10 000 US adults with type 2 diabetes. We then estimated the cost-effectiveness of reducing hemoglobin A1c from 9% to 7% among adults with type 2 diabetes, using low-cost, generic, oral medications. RESULTS: The model performed well in internal validation; the average absolute difference between simulated and observed incidence for 17 complications was < 8%. In external validation, the model was better at predicting outcomes in clinical trials than in observational studies. The cohort of US adults with type 2 diabetes was projected to have an average of 19.95 remaining life-years (from mean age 61), incur $187 729 in discounted medical costs, and accrue 8.79 discounted QALYs. The intervention to reduce hemoglobin A1c increased medical costs by $1256 and QALYs by 0.39, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9103 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Using equations exclusively derived from US studies, this new microsimulation model achieves good prediction accuracy in US populations. The model can be used to estimate the long-term health impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Impact of changes in diabetes screening guidelines on testing eligibility and potential yield among adults without diagnosed diabetes in the United States.

AIMS: Recent USPSTF and ADA guidelines expanded criteria of whom to test to identify prediabetes and diabetes. We described which Americans are eligible and report receiving glucose testing by USPSTF 2015 and 2021 as well as ADA 2003 and 2022 recommendations, and performance of each guideline. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 6,007 non-pregnant U.S. adults without diagnosed diabetes in the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. We reported proportions of adults who met each guideline's criteria for glucose testing and reported receiving glucose testing in the past three years, overall and by key population subgroups,. Defining prediabetes (FPG 100-125 mg/dL and/or HbA1c 5.7-6.4 %) or previously undiagnosed diabetes (FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.5 %), we assessed sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: During 2013-2018, 76.7 million, 90.4 million, 157.7 million, and 169.5 million US adults met eligibility for glucose testing by USPSTF 2015, 2021, and ADA 2003 and 2022 guidelines, respectively. On average, 52 % of adults reported receiving glucose testing within the past 3 years. Likelihood of receiving glucose testing was lower among younger adults, men, Hispanic adults, those with less than high school completion, those living in poverty, and those without health insurance or a usual place of care than their respective counterparts. ADA recommendations were most sensitive (range: 91.0 % to 100.0 %) and least specific (range: 18.3 % to 35.3 %); USPSTF recommendations exhibited lower sensitivity (51.9 % to 66.6 %), but higher specificity (56.6 % to 74.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: An additional 12-14 million US adults are eligible for diabetes screening. USPSTF 2021 criteria provide balanced sensitivity and specificity while ADA 2022 criteria maximize sensitivity. Glucose testing does not align with guidelines and disparities remain.

Differences in receipt of recommended eye examinations by comorbidity status and healthcare utilization among nonelderly adults with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of diabetes comorbidities by baseline healthcare utilization on receipt of recommended eye examinations. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 310 691 nonelderly adults with type 2 diabetes in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database from 2016 to 2019. Patients were grouped based on diabetes-concordant (related) or -discordant (unrelated) comorbidities. Logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR) for eye examinations by comorbidity status, healthcare utilization, and an interaction between comorbidities and utilization, controlling for age, sex, region, and major eye disease. RESULTS: Prevalence of biennial eye examinations varied by the four comorbidity groups: 43.5% (diabetes only), 52.7% (concordant + discordant comorbidities), 48.0% (concordant comorbidities only), and 45.3% (discordant comorbidities only). In the lowest healthcare utilization tertile, the concordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had lower prevalence of examinations compared to diabetes only (PR 0.95 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] and PR 0.91 [95% CI 0.88-0.95], respectively). In the medium utilization tertile, the discordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had lower prevalence of examinations (PR 0.89 [0.83-0.95] and PR 0.94 [0.90-0.98], respectively). In the highest utilization tertile, the concordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had higher prevalence of examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low healthcare utilization, having comorbid conditions is associated with lower prevalence of eye examinations. Among those with medium healthcare utilization, patients with diabetes-discordant comorbidities are particularly vulnerable. This study highlights populations of diabetes patients who would benefit from increased assistance in receiving vision-preserving eye examinations.

Proportions and trends of adult hospitalizations with Diabetes, United States, 2000-2018.

AIMS: To report the national proportions and trends of adult hospitalizations with diabetes in the United States during 2000-2018. METHODS: We used the 2000-2018 National Inpatient Sample to identify hospital discharges with any listed and primary diagnoses for diabetes, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10-CM codes. We calculated proportions and trends of adult hospitalizations with diabetes, overall and by subpopulations. We used the Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess calendar-year and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2018, the proportion of hospitalizations among adults ≥18 years increased from 17.1% to 27.3% (average annual percentage change [AAPC] 2.5%; P < 0.001) for any listed diabetes codes and from 1.5% to 2.1% (AAPC 2.2%; P < 0.001) for primary diagnosis of diabetes. Men, non-Hispanic Black patients, and those from poorer zip codes had higher proportions of hospitalizations with diabetes codes. CONCLUSION: In recent years, approximately one-quarter of adult hospitalizations in the United States had a listed diabetes code, increasing about 2.5% per year from 2000 to 2018. These data are important for benchmarking purposes, especially due to disruptions in health care utilization from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trends in inpatient admissions and emergency department visits for heart failure in adults with versus without diabetes in the USA, 2006-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. In this study, we estimated trends in the incidence of HF inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits by diabetes status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Population-based age-standardized HF rates in adults with and without diabetes were estimated from the 2006-2017 National Inpatient Sample, Nationwide ED Sample and year-matched National Health Interview Survey, and stratified by age and sex. Trends were assessed using Joinpoint. RESULTS: HF inpatient admissions did not change in adults with diabetes between 2006 and 2013 (from 53.9 to 50.4 per 1000 persons; annual percent change (APC): -0.3 (95% CI -2.5 to 1.9) but increased from 50.4 to 62.3 between 2013 and 2017 (APC: 4.8 (95% CI 0.3 to 9.6)). In adults without diabetes, inpatient admissions initially declined (from 14.8 in 2006 to 12.9 in 2014; APC -2.3 (95% CI -3.2 to -1.2)) and then plateaued. Patterns were similar in men and women, but relative increases were greatest in young adults with diabetes. HF-related ED visits increased overall, in men and women, and in all age groups, but increases were greater in adults with (vs without) diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Causes of increased HF rates in hospital settings are unknown, and more detailed data are needed to investigate the aetiology and determine prevention strategies, particularly among adults with diabetes and especially young adults with diabetes.

Long-term mortality among kidney transplant recipients with and without diabetes: a nationwide cohort study in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the role diabetes (type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D)) plays in modifying prognosis among kidney transplant recipients. Here, we compare mortality among transplant recipients with T1D, T2D and non-diabetes-related end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included 254 188 first-time single kidney transplant recipients aged ≥18 years from the US Renal Data System (2000-2018). Diabetes status, as primary cause of ESKD, was defined using International Classification of Disease 9th and 10th Clinical Modification codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models (right-censored) computed risk of death associated with T1D and T2D relative to non-diabetes. Trends in standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) (2000-2017), relative to the general US population, were assessed using Joinpoint regression. RESULTS: A total of 72 175 (28.4%) deaths occurred over a median survival time of 14.6 years. 5-year survival probabilities were 88%, 85% and 77% for non-diabetes, T1D and T2D, respectively. In adjusted models, mortality was highest for T1D (HR=1.95, (95% CI: 1.88 to 2.03)) and then T2D (1.65 (1.62 to 1.69)), as compared with non-diabetes. SMRs declined for non-diabetes, T1D, and T2D. However, in 2017, SMRs were 2.38 (2.31 to 2.45), 6.55 (6.07 to 7.06), and 3.82 (3.68 to 3.98), for non-diabetes, T1D and T2D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the USA, diabetes type is an important modifier in mortality risk among kidney transplant recipients with highest rates among people with T1D-related ESKD. Development of effective interventions that reduce excess mortality in transplant recipients with diabetes is needed, especially for T1D.

Trends in Total and Out-of-pocket Payments for Noninsulin Glucose-Lowering Drugs Among U.S. Adults With Large-Employer Private Health Insurance From 2005 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends in total payment and patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) payments of noninsulin glucose-lowering drugs by class from 2005 to 2018. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data for 53 million prescriptions from adults aged >18 years with type 2 diabetes under fee-for-service plans from the 2005-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases. The total payment was measured as the amount that the pharmacy received, and the OOP payment was the sum of copay, coinsurance, and deductible paid by the beneficiaries. We applied a joinpoint regression to evaluate nonlinear trends in cost between 2005 and 2018. We further conducted a decomposition analysis to explore the drivers for total payment change. RESULTS: Total annual payments for older drug classes, including metformin, sulfonylurea, meglitinide, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and thiazolidinedione, declined during 2005-2018, ranging from -$271 (-53.8%) for metformin to -$2,406 (-92.2%) for thiazolidinedione. OOP payments for these drug classes also reduced. In the same period, the total annual payments for the newer drug classes, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, increased by $2,181 (88.4%), $3,721 (77.6%), and $1,374 (37.0%), respectively. OOP payment for these newer classes remained relatively unchanged. Our study findings indicate that switching toward the newer classes for noninsulin glucose-lowering drugs was the main driver that explained the total payment increase. CONCLUSIONS: Average annual payments and OOP payment for noninsulin glucose-lowering drugs increased significantly from 2005 to 2018. The uptake of newer drug classes was the main driver.

Identifying optimal survey-based algorithms to distinguish diabetes type among adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Surveys for U.S. diabetes surveillance do not reliably distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, potentially obscuring trends in type 1 among adults. To validate survey-based algorithms for distinguishing diabetes type, we linked survey data collected from adult patients with diabetes to a gold standard diabetes type. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We collected data through a telephone survey of 771 adults with diabetes receiving care in a large healthcare system in North Carolina. We tested 34 survey classification algorithms utilizing information on respondents' report of physician-diagnosed diabetes type, age at onset, diabetes drug use, and body mass index. Algorithms were evaluated by calculating type 1 and type 2 sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) relative to a gold standard diagnosis of diabetes type determined through analysis of EHR data and endocrinologist review of selected cases. RESULTS: Algorithms based on self-reported type outperformed those based solely on other data elements. The top-performing algorithm classified as type 1 all respondents who reported type 1 and were prescribed insulin, as "other diabetes type" all respondents who reported "other," and as type 2 the remaining respondents (type 1 sensitivity 91.6%, type 1 specificity 98.9%, type 1 PPV 82.5%, type 1 NPV 99.5%). This algorithm performed well in most demographic subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: The major federal health surveys should consider including self-reported diabetes type if they do not already, as the gains in the accuracy of typing are substantial compared to classifications based on other data elements. This study provides much-needed guidance on the accuracy of survey-based diabetes typing algorithms.

Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions - United States, January-May 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, states enacted stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and reduce the burden on the U.S. health care system. CDC* and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)† recommended that health care systems prioritize urgent visits and delay elective care to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in health care settings. By May 2020, national syndromic surveillance data found that emergency department (ED) visits had declined 42% during the early months of the pandemic (1). This report describes trends in ED visits for three acute life-threatening health conditions (myocardial infarction [MI, also known as heart attack], stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis), immediately before and after declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency. These conditions represent acute events that always necessitate immediate emergency care, even during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 weeks following the emergency declaration (March 15-May 23, 2020), ED visits declined 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis, compared with the preceding 10-week period (January 5-March 14, 2020). EDs play a critical role in diagnosing and treating life-threatening conditions that might result in serious disability or death. Persons experiencing signs or symptoms of serious illness, such as severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental state, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Clear, frequent, highly visible communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely care for medical emergencies and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines that help ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel.