Explore the vast range of titles available.

When state laws banning abortion directly and immediately threaten the health of patients, should physicians collectively disobey them?

Neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 prevents hospitalization and death but is underused, especially in racial/ethnic minority and rural populations. Reasons for underuse and inequity may include community member lack of awareness or healthcare access barriers, among others. This study assessed mAbs community awareness and opportunities for improving equitable mAb access. A concurrent mixed methods study including surveys and focus groups with adults with high-risk conditions or their proxy decision-makers. Surveys and focus group guides addressed diffusion of innovation theory factors. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact method was used to report and compare survey findings by race and ethnicity. Rapid qualitative methods were used for focus group analysis. Surveys from 515 individuals (460 English, 54 Spanish, 1 Amharic), and 8 focus groups (6 English, 2 Spanish) with 69 participants, completed June 2021 to January 2022. Most survey respondents (75%) had heard little or nothing about mAbs, but 95% would consider getting mAb treatment. Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic People of Color (POC) reported less awareness, greater concern about intravenous infusions, and less trust in mAb safety and effectiveness than White, Non-Hispanic respondents. Focus group themes included little awareness but high interest in mAb treatment and concerns about cost and access barriers such as lacking established sources of care and travel from rural communities. Focus groups revealed preferences for broad-reaching but tailored messaging strategies using multiple media and trusted community leaders. Despite unfamiliarity with mAb treatment, most respondents were open to receiving mAbs or recommending mAbs to others. While mAb messaging should have broad reach \"to everyone everywhere,\" racial and geographic disparities in awareness and trust about mAbs underscore need for tailored messaging to promote equitable access. Care processes should address patient-level barriers like transportation, insurance, or primary care access. COVID-19 treatment dissemination strategies should promote health equity.

COVID-19 patients have experienced worry, altered provider-patient interactions, and options to use novel treatments, initially with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Limited research has been performed on these aspects of the COVID-19 outpatient experience. This study aimed to evaluate the experiences of outpatients recently diagnosed with COVID-19, who were eligible for use of mAbs, during the diagnosis and treatment process based on sociodemographic and clinical factors. This was a self-reported cohort study performed via telephone surveys. Participants included COVID-19 outpatients who met at least one emergency use criterion for mAbs during the first 120 days after a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We analyzed survey results using multivariable logistic regression for non-scale outcomes and adjusted proportional odds logistic regression for scaled outcomes. Greater worry about their COVID-19 diagnosis was reported by younger, female, and Hispanic patients and those with Medicaid insurance, two or more comorbid conditions, BMI > 25, and at least 2 COVID-19 vaccinations. Greater provider trust was reported by patients with ≥ 2 years of college education, one or more comorbid conditions, and one or more COVID-19 vaccinations; whereas less provider trust was reported by patients ages 45-64 years, with usual place of care in a walk-in clinic, and those without Commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid insurance. In patients who did not receive mAbs, patients with Medicaid and those without Commercial/Medicare insurance were among the factors that were less likely be offered mAbs by a provider. This report describes factors associated with multiple aspects of outpatients' experience of COVID-19. This study demonstrated that there are important differences in the experience of outpatient COVID-19 patients based on sociodemographic factors and clinical factors, as well as where additional strategies are needed to improve this experience and associated outcomes.

Background A trial performed among unvaccinated, high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 during the delta period showed remdesivir reduced hospitalization. We used our real-world data platform to determine the effectiveness of remdesivir on reducing 28-day hospitalization among outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19 during an Omicron period including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. Methods We did a propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 7, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Electronic healthcare record data from a large health system in Colorado were linked to statewide vaccination and mortality data. We included patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or outpatient remdesivir administration. Exclusion criteria were other SARS-CoV-2 treatments or positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than seven days before remdesivir. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization up to day 28. Secondary outcomes included 28-day COVID-related hospitalization and 28-day all-cause mortality. Results Among 29,270 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1,252 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 2,499 untreated patients. Remdesivir was associated with lower 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs. 3.3%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.39 [95% CI 0.23–0.67], p  < 0.001) than no treatment. All-cause mortality at 28 days was numerically lower among remdesivir-treated patients (0.1% vs. 0.4%; aOR 0.32 [95% CI 0.03–1.40]). Similar benefit of RDV treatment on 28-day all-cause hospitalization was observed across Omicron periods, aOR (95% CI): BA.2/BA2.12.1 (0.77[0.19–2.41]), BA.4/5 (0.50[95% CI 0.50–1.01]), BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 (0.21[95% CI 0.08–0.57]. Conclusion Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 during recent Omicron surges, remdesivir was associated with lower hospitalization than no treatment, supporting current National Institutes of Health Guidelines.

Crisis triage protocols should seek to optimize health outcomes, but doing so requires explicit protection of core values, such as the equal moral worth of all people, including those with disabilities. Some thoughtful policies are capable of meeting both goals.

Background Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality among early symptomatic COVID-19 patients in clinical trials and real-world data. While resistance to some mAbs has since emerged among new variants, characteristics associated with treatment failure of mAbs remain unknown. Methods This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who received mAb treatment between November 20, 2020, and December 9, 2021. We utilized electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. The primary outcome was mAb treatment failure, defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Results COVID-19 mAb was administered to 7406 patients. Hospitalization within 28 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred in 258 (3.5%) of all patients who received mAb treatment. Ten patients (0.1%) died within 28 days, and all but one were hospitalized prior to death. Characteristics associated with treatment failure included having two or more comorbidities excluding obesity and immunocompromised status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.52–5.56), lack of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.01–3.77), non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.20–3.82), obesity (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36–2.34), one comorbidity (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11–2.57), age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13–2.35), and male sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21–2.02). Immunocompromised status (none, mild, or moderate/severe), pandemic phase, and type of mAb received were not associated with treatment failure (all p > 0.05). Conclusions Comorbidities, lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, obesity, age ≥ 65 years, and male sex are associated with treatment failure of mAbs.

Nirmatrelvir is a protease inhibitor with in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir can reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among individuals at high risk infected with delta and early omicron variants. However, less is known about the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir during more recent BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron variant surges. We used our real-world data platform to evaluate the effect of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment on 28-day hospitalisation, mortality, and emergency department visits among outpatients with early symptomatic COVID-19 during a SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) predominant period in Colorado, USA. We did a propensity-matched, retrospective, observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, using records from a statewide health system in Colorado. We obtained data from the electronic health records of University of Colorado Health, the largest health system in Colorado, with 13 hospitals and 141 000 annual hospital admissions, and with numerous ambulatory sites and affiliated pharmacies around the state. Included patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or nirmatrelvir–ritonavir medication order. Exclusion criteria were an order for or administration of other SARS-CoV-2 treatments within 10 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalisation at the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than 10 days before a nirmatrelvir–ritonavir order. We propensity score matched patients treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir with untreated patients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. Among 28 167 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, 21 493 met the study inclusion criteria. 9881 patients received treatment with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and 11 612 were untreated. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation compared with no antiviral treatment (61 [0·9%] of 7168 patients vs 135 [1·4%] of 9361 patients, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·45 [95% CI 0·33–0·62]; p<0·0001). Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced 28-day all-cause mortality (two [<0·1%] of 7168 patients vs 15 [0·2%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·03–0·50]; p=0·0010). Using subsequent emergency department visits as a surrogate for clinically significant relapse, we observed a decrease after nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment (283 [3·9%] of 7168 patients vs 437 [4·7%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·63–0·87]; p=0·0002). Real-world evidence reported during a BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron surge showed an association between nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment and reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and visits to the emergency department. With results that are among the first to suggest effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir for non-hospitalised patients during an omicron period inclusive of BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, these data support nirmatrelvir–ritonavir as an ongoing first-line treatment for adults acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2. US National Institutes of Health.

Background The success of initiatives intended to increase the value of health care depends, in part, on the degree to which cost-conscious care is endorsed by current and future physicians. This study aimed to first analyze attitudes of U.S. physicians by age and then compare the attitudes of physicians and medical students. Methods A paper survey was mailed in mid-2012 to 3897 practicing physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. An electronic survey was sent in early 2015 to all 5,992 students at 10 U.S. medical schools. Survey items measured attitudes toward cost-conscious care and perceived responsibility for reducing healthcare costs. Physician responses were first compared across age groups (30–40 years, 41–50 years, 51–60 years, and > 60 years) and then compared to student responses using Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses (controlling for sex). Results A total of 2,556 physicians (65%) and 3395 students (57%) responded. Physician attitudes generally did not differ by age, but differed significantly from those of students. Specifically, students were more likely than physicians to agree that cost to society should be important in treatment decisions ( p  < 0.001) and that physicians should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services ( p  < 0.001). Students were less likely to agree that it is unfair to ask physicians to be cost-conscious while prioritizing patient welfare ( p  < 0.001). Compared to physicians, students assigned more responsibility for reducing healthcare costs to hospitals and health systems ( p  < 0.001) and less responsibility to lawyers ( p  < 0.001) and patients ( p  < 0.001). Nearly all significant differences persisted after controlling for sex and when only the youngest physicians were compared to students. Conclusions Physician attitudes toward cost-conscious care are similar across age groups. However, physician attitudes differ significantly from medical students, even among the youngest physicians most proximate to students in age. Medical student responses suggest they are more accepting of cost-conscious care than physicians and attribute more responsibility for reducing costs to organizations and systems rather than individuals. This may be due to the combined effects of generational differences, new medical school curricula, students’ relative inexperience providing cost-conscious care within complex healthcare systems, and the rapidly evolving U.S. healthcare system.

Background Burnout among clinicians is common and can undermine quality of care, patient outcomes, and workforce preservation, but sources of burnout or protective factors unique to clinicians working in safety-net settings are less well understood. Understanding these clinician experiences may inform interventions to reduce burnout. Objective To describe clinician perspectives on sources of burnout in a safety-net healthcare system. Design Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians from multiple disciplines who provided care at a safety-net healthcare system from October 2018 to January 2019. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants Forty clinicians (25 female and 15 male; mean [SD] age, 41 [9.1]) participated, including physicians, social workers, advanced practice providers, nurses, psychologists, physical and occupational therapists, and other healthcare professionals. Main Outcomes and Measures Themes and subthemes that reflected clinician experiences, burnout, and workload expectations. Key Results Five themes emerged: limited resources (entrenched social injustices, brokenness of the US healthcare system, precarious discharge options, and “revolving door” readmissions), barriers to building trust with patients (chasm of communication, addressing fear and mistrust, and being exposed to threats), administrative requirements (criticism hampering meaningful care, assuming extra workloads, bureaucratic burden), compassion fatigue (confronting traumatic situations, persistent worry about patient safety and welfare, witnessing mistreatment and stigmatization, overextending and overinvesting, withdrawing and shutting down, blaming self and career crisis), and advocacy as a counterbalance to burnout (solidarity when helping underserved communities, fervent advocacy, and patient gratitude). Conclusions Among clinicians who provide care in a safety-net healthcare system, sources of burnout included limited resources, barriers to building trust with patients, administrative requirements, and compassion fatigue, but clinicians remained driven by their desire to advocate for patients. Policy-level interventions which increase funding to safety-net healthcare systems to bolster existing resources and staffing, create peer-support and wellness programs, and support advocacy efforts may mitigate burnout.