RESUMEN

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an evidence-based approach to diabetes care in primary care settings, yet practices can struggle to ensure participation, especially among racial and ethnic minority and low-income patients. We conducted a multimethod evaluation of reach and attendance in the Invested in Diabetes study of the comparative effectiveness of two SMA delivery models (standardized and patient-driven) in two practice settings (federally qualified health centers [FQHCs] and clinics serving more commercially insured patients). Through this study, 22 practices reached 6.2% of patients with diabetes through SMAs over 3 years, with good attendance for both practice types and both SMA delivery models. FQHCs were especially successful at enrolling underserved populations and improved attendance with virtual SMAs.

RESUMEN

Although swallowed topical steroids are effective in inducing histological remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), their efficacy is limited by treatment nonadherence. In this study, we objectively measured adherence rates to swallowed topical steroids in adolescents with EoE over the course of 8 weeks and analyzed the association between adherence rate, disease and demographic features, symptom severity, and medication-taking habit strength. We found that approximately 20% of adolescents with EoE were over-dosing on their medications. After excluding these patients, mean adherence rate was 67.0% (±19.4%) and median adherence rate was 63% (interquartile range 53%-88%). Adherence was not associated with demographic features, disease history, symptom severity, or quality of life but was associated with habit strength (Pearson r = 0.48, P = 0.04). These findings suggest that habit strength may serve as a potential target for interventions aimed at improving adherence in adolescents with EoE.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients based on clinical trials completed early in the pandemic, which were underpowered for mortality and subgroup analyses. Real-world data studies are promising for further assessing rapidly deployed therapeutics. RESEARCH QUESTION: Did mAb treatment prevent progression to severe disease and death across pandemic phases and based on risk factors, including prior vaccination status? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This observational cohort study included nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from November 2020 to October 2021 using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. Using propensity matching, we selected approximately 2.5 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and hospitalization severity. RESULTS: Of 36,077 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,675 receiving mAbs were matched to 6,677 patients not receiving mAbs. Compared with mAb-untreated patients, mAb-treated patients had lower all-cause hospitalization (4.0% vs 7.7%; adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and all-cause mortality (0.1% vs 0.9%; adjusted OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29) to day 28; differences persisted to day 90. Among hospitalized patients, mAb-treated patients had shorter hospital length of stay (5.8 vs 8.5 days) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (4.6% vs 16.6%). Results were similar for preventing hospitalizations during the Delta variant phase (adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50) and across subgroups. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent hospitalization was lower for subgroups with higher baseline risk of hospitalization; for example, multiple comorbidities (NNT = 17) and not fully vaccinated (NNT = 24) vs no comorbidities (NNT = 88) and fully vaccinated (NNT = 81). INTERPRETATION: Real-world data revealed a strong association between receipt of mAbs and reduced hospitalization and deaths among COVID-19 outpatients across pandemic phases. Real-world data studies should be used to guide practice and policy decisions, including allocation of scarce resources.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatments for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been available since November 2020. However, they have been underutilized and access has been inequitable. To understand, from the clinician perspective, the factors facilitating or hindering monoclonal antibody referrals, patient access, and equity to inform development of clinician-focused messages, materials, and processes for improving access to therapeutics for COVID-19 in Colorado. We interviewed 38 frontline clinicians with experience caring for patients with COVID-19 in outpatient settings. Clinicians were purposely sampled for diversity to understand perspectives across geography (i.e., urban versus rural), practice setting, specialty, and self-reported knowledge about monoclonal antibodies. Interviews were conducted between June and September 2021, lasted 21 to 62 minutes, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were then analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to identify thematic content and to compare themes across practice settings and other variables. Clinicians perceived monoclonal antibodies to be highly effective and were unconcerned about their emergency use status; hence, these factors were not perceived to hinder patient referrals. However, some barriers to access - including complex and changing logistics for referring, as well as the time and facilities needed for an infusion - inhibited widespread use. Clinicians in small, independent, and rural practices experienced unique challenges, such as lack of awareness of their patients' COVID-19 test results, disconnect from treatment distribution systems, and patients who faced long travel times to obtain treatment. Many clinicians held a persistent belief that monoclonal antibodies were in short supply; this belief hindered referrals, even when monoclonal antibody doses were not scarce. Across practice settings, the most important facilitator for access to monoclonal antibodies was linkage of COVID-19 testing and treatment within care delivery. Although clinicians viewed monoclonal antibodies as safe and effective treatments for COVID-19, individual- and system-level barriers inhibited referrals, particular in some practice settings. Subcutaneous or oral formulations may overcome certain barriers to access, but simplifying patient access by linking testing with delivery of treatments that reduce morbidity and mortality will be critical for the ongoing response to COVID-19 and in future pandemics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To measure adherence rates to swallowed topical steroids in children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), describe factors related to adherence, and determine the association between adherence, symptoms, perceived disease severity, and quality of life in children with EoE. STUDY DESIGN: Subjects in this cross-sectional study of 117 children between 5 and 18 years old with EoE completed the Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptoms Score V2.0 (PEESS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Eosinophilic Esophagitis Module (PedsQL EoE), a Medication-Taking Checklist (MTC), and a demographics questionnaire. Adherence rate was calculated based on reported number of missed doses/prescribed doses in the last week. Parent-reported measures were used for children aged 5-12 years and self-report was used for children aged 13-18 years. RESULTS: Adolescents had lower adherence rates than younger children (76.2 ± 24.5% vs 88.6 ± 16.7%, P = .002). Adherence rates were not associated with disease history, PEESS, or PedsQL EoE scores but instead correlated with MTC scores (Pearson r of 0.65, P < .001 for child-report and Pearson r of 0.74, P < .001 for parent-report). Symptomatology was associated with worse quality of life (PEESS Frequency: r = -0.7, P < .001; PEESS Severity: r = -0.71, P < .001 for children 5-12 years old; PEESS Frequency: r = -0.61, P < .001; PEESS Severity: r = -.5, P < .001 for adolescents). CONCLUSIONS: Unrelated to their clinical history, demographic factors, symptoms, and quality of life, adolescents with EoE have lower medication adherence rates. The MTC may serve as a clinical tool to discuss adherence and provide targeted educational counseling regarding adherence interventions.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)