Leveraging the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Staging and Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines for gastric cancer across the United States is poor. This pilot study aimed to create and evaluate a change package for disseminating information on the staging and treatment of gastric cancer during multidisciplinary tumor boards and for identifying barriers to implementation. METHODS: The change package included a 10-min video, a brief knowledge assessment, and a discussion guide. Commission on Cancer-accredited sites that perform gastrectomy were invited to participate. Participants completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (range, 12-60) and scales to measure the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (score range, 4-20). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to further define inner and outer setting barriers. RESULTS: Seven centers participated in the study. A total of 74 participants completed the pre-video knowledge assessment, and 55 participants completed the post-video assessment. The recommendations found to be most controversial were separate staging laparoscopy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. Sum scores were calculated for acceptability (mean, 17.43 ± 2.51) appropriateness (mean, 16.86 ± 3.24), and feasibility (mean, 16.14 ± 3.07) of the change package. The ORIC scores (mean, 46.57 ± 8.22) correlated with responses to the open-ended questions. The key barriers identified were patient volume, skills in the procedures, and attitudes and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The change package was moderately to highly feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. The activity identified specific recommendations for gastric cancer care that are considered controversial and local barriers to implementation. Future efforts could focus on building skills and knowledge as well as the more difficult issue of attitudes and beliefs.

Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, and Vaccine Hesitancy Among the Latinx Community in Southern California Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Latinx population in the United States has experienced high rates of infection, hospitalization, and death since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little data on the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) specifically in Latinx communities in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess COVID-19 KAP and vaccine hesitancy among a Latinx cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (from July 2020 to October 2020), at a unique time when a vaccine was not available. METHODS: Participants aged ≥18 years were recruited at a primary care clinic in Southern California and asked to self-report sociodemographic characteristics, KAP, and vaccine hesitancy. A subset of the participants answered the vaccine hesitancy assessment as it was added after the start of data collection. KAP items were summed to create composite scores, with higher scores reflecting increased COVID-19 knowledge, positive attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic, and disease prevention practices. Bivariate and multivariable regression models were fitted to test associations between sociodemographic characteristics and KAP scores. For our analysis, we only included patients who self-identified as Latinx. RESULTS: Our final data set included 265 participants. The participants had a mean age of 49 (IQR 38.5-59) years, and 72.1% (n=191) were female, 77% (n=204) had at most a high school degree, 34.7% (n=92) had an annual income

Assessing COVID-19-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Hispanic Primary Care Patients: Protocol for a Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent epidemiological data indicate that minority groups, especially Hispanic communities, experience higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19. It is important to understand the nature of this health disparity and the socioeconomic or behavioral factors that are placing Hispanic communities and other minority populations at higher risk for morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to assess current COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among a predominantly Hispanic population from Orange County, California, and identify risk factors that may contribute to increased susceptibility and vulnerability to contracting SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Our Orange County-wide community survey consists of quantitative survey questions in four domains: demographic information, COVID-19 knowledge questions, COVID-19 attitude questions, and COVID-19 practices questions. The survey questions are adapted from recent global KAP studies. Participants are being recruited from Amistad Medical Clinic, a private primary health clinic group in Orange County that treats a predominantly Hispanic population. Patients recruited during telehealth visits are surveyed remotely by telephone, and those recruited during in-person clinic visits are surveyed in person. Surveys are conducted by trained members of the study team who are native to the community setting. RESULTS: As of October 12, 2020, we had recruited and enrolled 327 participants. Data collection occurred June 26th to October 30th. Data analysis is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Very few current COVID-19 studies focus on the perspective and experience of minority populations. Because Hispanic communities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, it is important to understand the factors the contribute to this disparity and the next steps that should be taken to reduce the COVID-19 burden in this population. We believe that our study model of partnering with a local clinic system that serves our study population can be expanded to other settings to compare COVID-19 KAP and associated factors within different minority communities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/25265.

Clinical trial protocol to evaluate the efficacy of cefixime in the treatment of early syphilis.

BACKGROUND: Syphilis rates have been increasing both in the USA and internationally with incidence higher among men-who-have-sex-with-men and people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Currently, benzathine penicillin is the recommended treatment for syphilis in all patients. Global shortages and cost increases in benzathine penicillin call for alternative treatment options. This study evaluates the efficacy of oral cefixime for the treatment of early syphilis. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized, multisite, open-label, non-comparative clinical trial in Los Angeles and Oakland, CA. Eligible participants are ≥ 18 years old, with primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis (rapid plasma reagin [RPR] titer ≥ 1:8). Patients with HIV infection must have a viral load ≤ 200 copies/mL and CD4+ T cell count ≥ 350 cells/µL during the past 6 months. Participants are randomized to receive either 2.4 M IU benzathine penicillin G intramuscularly once or cefixime 400 mg orally twice a day for 10 days. Participants return at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment for follow-up RPR serological testing. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve ≥ 4-fold RPR titer decrease at 3 or 6 months post-treatment. DISCUSSION: Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of alternative antibiotics to penicillin are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03660488 . Registered on 4 September 2018.