Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection History and Antibody Response to 3 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Messenger RNA Vaccine Doses.

BACKGROUND: Data on antibody kinetics are limited among individuals previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). From a cohort of healthcare personnel and other frontline workers in 6 US states, we assessed antibody waning after messenger RNA (mRNA) dose 2 and response to dose 3 according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. METHODS: Participants submitted sera every 3 months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each mRNA vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in AUC values over time were compared using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Analysis included 388 participants who received dose 3 by November 2021. There were 3 comparison groups: vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); infection prior to dose 1 (n = 123); and infection after dose 2 and before dose 3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8 months. After dose 3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-3.0) in group 2 and 2.9-fold (95% CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose 3 (and median 233 days [interquartile range, 213-246] after dose 2) did not increase significantly after dose 3. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection <3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.

Serum per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance concentrations and longitudinal change in post-infection and post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous throughout the United States. Previous studies have shown PFAS exposure to be associated with a reduced immune response. However, the relationship between serum PFAS and antibody levels following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination has not been examined. We examined differences in peak immune response and the longitudinal decline of antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination by serum PFAS levels in a cohort of essential workers in the United States. We measured serum antibodies using an in-house semi-quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Two cohorts contributed blood samples following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination. We used linear mixed regression models, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender, presence of chronic conditions, location, and occupation, to estimate differences in immune response with respect to serum PFAS levels. Our study populations included 153 unvaccinated participants that contributed 316 blood draws over a 14-month period following infection, and 860 participants and 2451 blood draws over a 12-month period following vaccination. Higher perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) concentrations were associated with a lower peak antibody response after infection (p = 0.009, 0.031, 0.015). Higher PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), PFHxS, and PFNA concentrations were associated with slower declines in antibodies over time after infection (p = 0.003, 0.014, 0.026, 0.025). PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA serum concentrations prior to vaccination were not associated with differences in peak antibody response after vaccination or with differences in decline of antibodies over time after vaccination. These results suggest that elevated PFAS may impede potential immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection by blunting peak antibody levels following infection; the same finding was not observed for immune response to vaccination.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.

Factors associated with opioid-tapering success: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid tapering is recommended when risks of chronic opioid use outweigh benefits. Little is known about patient characteristics or factors related to tapering success. We sought to identify characteristics that predict a 50% reduction in opioid use and qualitatively characterize factors that impact tapering success. METHODS: We used multilevel hierarchical modeling to identify predictors of a 50% reduction in opioid use among Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who underwent pharmacist-led tapering between 2012 and 2017. We conducted qualitative interviews among patients and pharmacists to identify factors influencing tapering success. RESULTS: We identified 1384 patients who, on average, were dispensed 207 milligram morphine equivalents per day at baseline. After 12 months, 56% of patients reduced their opioid use by 50%. Increased odds of 50% reduction were associated with younger age 21-49 years (Odds ratio [OR] 1.32, P = 0.004); previous surgery (OR 2.24, P < 0.001); increased number of Addiction Medicine encounters (OR 1.25, P = 0.011); substance use disorder (OR 1.62, P = 0.001); anxiety (OR 1.32, P = 0.003); non-narcotic analgesic (OR 1.22, P = 0.025) or antipsychotic medication use (OR 1.53, P = 0.006); and opioid days supplied in the previous year (OR 1.08, P < 0.001). Patients and pharmacists noted that success was influenced by patients' willingness or resistance to change opioid use, the level of patient engagement achieved through communication with their provider, aspects of the tapering process such as pace, and external factors including health issues or caregiving responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-half of patients who underwent tapering reduced their opioid use by 50%. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were predictive of tapering success; however, patients and pharmacists noted that patient willingness, motivation, and personal circumstances also influence tapering outcome. Opioid tapering requires an individualized approach. Both clinical factors and personal circumstances should be considered when opioid tapering is being discussed as a possible solution for a patient.

A Pharmacist-Led Program to Taper Opioid Use at Kaiser Permanente Northwest: Rationale, Design, and Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) are concerned about adverse effects and poor outcomes of opioid use but may find opioid tapering difficult because of a lack of pain management training or time constraints limiting patient counseling. In 2010, Kaiser Permanente Northwest implemented a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program-Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM)-to address high rates of opioid use, alleviate PCPs' workload demands, and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rationale, structure, and delivery of this unique pharmacist-led program, which partners with PCPs and provides individualized care to help patients reduce opioid use, and the Facilitating Lower Opioid Amounts through Tapering study, which examines the program's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation. RESULTS: The STORM program includes a pain medicine physician, a social worker or nurse, and pharmacists who have received specialized clinical and communications training. The program has a 2-fold role: 1) to provide PCP education about pain management and opioid use and 2) to offer clinician and patient support with opioid tapering and pain management. After program training, PCPs are equipped to discuss the need for tapering with a patient and to refer to the program. Program pharmacists provide a range of services, including opioid taper plans, nonopioid pain management recommendations, and taper-support outreach to patients. DISCUSSION: The STORM program provides individualized care to assist patients with opioid tapering while reducing the burden on PCPs. CONCLUSION: The STORM program may be a valuable addition to health care systems and settings seeking options to address their patients' opioid tapering needs.

Patient-centered interventions to improve medication management and adherence: a qualitative review of research findings.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior. METHODS: We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type. RESULTS: We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.