Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Association of Intravenous Bamlanivimab Use with Reduced Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and Mortality in Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. METHODS: 2,335 patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020 to February 17, 2021 were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2,335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28. RESULTS: The median age of the population was 63; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were ≥65 years; 49.3% were female. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), body mass index ≥35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs 3.5%; Odds Ratio [OR], 0.38), 21 (1.9% vs 3.9%; OR, 0.46), and 28 (2.5% vs 3.9%; OR, 0.61). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs 1%; OR, 0.12), 21 (0.25% vs 1%; OR: 0.24) and 28 (0.56% vs 1.1%; OR: 0.52), and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs 0.4%; OR,0.08) and 28 (0.11% vs 0.44%; OR, 0.01). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19/2355, most commonly fever (n=6), nausea (n=5), and lightheadedness (n=3). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization compared with usual care. FUNDING: Mayo Clinic.

Population health challenges in primary care: What are the unfinished tasks and who should do them?

BACKGROUND: There are numerous recommendations from expert sources that help guide primary care providers in cancer screening, infectious disease screening, metabolic screening, monitoring of drug levels, and chronic disease management. Little is known about the potential effort needed for a healthcare system to address these recommendations, or the patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. METHODS: For 73 recommended population healthcare items, we examined each of 28,742 patients in a primary care internal medicine practice to determine whether they were up-to-date on recommended screening, immunizations, counseling, and chronic disease management goals. We used a rule-based software tool that queries the medical record for diagnoses, dates, laboratory values, pathology reports, and other information used in creating the individualized recommendations. We counted the number of uncompleted recommendations by age groups and examined the healthcare staff needed to address the recommendations and the potential patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. RESULTS: For the 28,742 patients, there were 127,273 uncompleted recommendations identified for population health management (mean recommendations per patient 4.36, standard deviation of 2.65, range of 0-17 recommendations per patient). The age group with the most incomplete recommendations was age of 50-65 years with 5.5 recommendations per patient. The 18-35 years age group had the fewest incomplete recommendations with 2.6 per patient. Across all age groups, initiation of these recommendations required high-level input (physician, nurse practitioner, or physician's assistant) in 28%. To completely adhere to recommended services, a 1000-patient cross-section cohort would require a total of 464 procedures and 1956 lab tests. CONCLUSION: Providers and patients face a daunting number of tasks necessary to meet guideline-generated recommendations. We will need new approaches to address the burgeoning numbers of uncompleted recommendations.

High rates of cancer screening among dialysis patients seen in primary care a cohort study.

Routine preventive cancer screening is not recommended for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to their limited life expectancy. The current extent of cancer screening in this population is unknown. Primary care (PC) reminder systems or performance incentives may encourage indiscriminate cancer screening. We compared rates of cancer screening in patients with ESRD, with and without PC visits. This is a retrospective cohort study using United States Renal Data System (USRDS) billing data and electronic medical record data. Patients aged ≥18 years starting dialysis from 2001 to 2008, Midwest regional dialysis network were categorized with or without a PC visit (defined as an office visit in family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics or preventive medicine during the first two years of dialysis). Cancer screening was based on Current Procedural Terminology codes in USRDS. We identified 2512 incident dialysis patients (60% men, median age 65y). Cancer screening rates were more frequent among those seen in PC: 38% vs 19% (P = 0.0002), for breast; 18% vs 10% (P = 0.047) for cervical; 13% versus 8% (P = 0.024) for prostate; and 18% vs 9% (P = 0.0002) for colon cancer. Multivariable analyses found that those with PC were more likely to be screened after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities. In our practice, cancer screening rates among chronic dialysis patients are lower than those previously reported for our general population (64% for breast cancer). However, a sizeable proportion of our ESRD population does receive cancer screening, especially those still seen in primary care.

Early Adoption of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize early adoption of a novel multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and to test the hypothesis that adoption differs by demographic characteristics and prior CRC screening behavior and proceeds predictably over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Rochester Epidemiology Project research infrastructure to assess the use of the MT-sDNA screening test in adults aged 50 to 75 years living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, in 2014 and identified 27,147 individuals eligible or due for screening colonoscopy from November 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. We used electronic Current Procedure Terminology and Health Care Common Procedure codes to evaluate early adoption of the MT-sDNA screening test in this population and to test whether early adoption varies by age, sex, race, and prior CRC screening behavior. RESULTS: Overall, 2193 (8.1%) and 974 (3.6%) individuals were screened by colonoscopy and MT-sDNA, respectively. Age, sex, race, and prior CRC screening behavior were significantly and independently associated with MT-sDNA screening use compared with colonoscopy use after adjustment for all other variables (P<.05 for all). The rates of adoption of MT-sDNA screening increased over time and were highest in those aged 50 to 54 years, women, whites, and those who had a history of screening. The use of the MT-sDNA screening test varied predictably by insurance coverage. The rates of colonoscopy decreased over time, whereas overall CRC screening rates remained steady. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study are generally consistent with predictions derived from prior research and the diffusion of innovation framework, pointing to increasing use of the new screening test over time and early adoption by younger patients, women, whites, and those with prior CRC screening.

Effect of visit length and a clinical decision support tool on abdominal aortic aneurysm screening rates in a primary care practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In 2005, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued recommendations for one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening using abdominal ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years with a history of smoking. However, despite a mortality rate of up to 80% for ruptured AAAs, providers order the screening for a minority of patients. We examined AAA screening rates among providers and investigated the role of visit duration and other factors in whether patients received screening. We also looked for potential interventions to improve compliance. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who visited our clinic over a 4-month period and met the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for AAA screening when our practice had a real-time decision support tool implemented to identify patients due for the screening. We also surveyed our clinic's providers about their knowledge and attitudes regarding AAA screening. RESULTS: Despite the use of physician reminders, providers ordered screening for only 12.9% of eligible patients. Screening was more likely to be ordered during longer visits versus shorter ones (24% vs. 6%). When surveyed, most providers (70.6%) indicated that a nurse-directed ordering system would improve compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates that physician reminders alone are not sufficient to improve care and that more time is needed for preventive services. This provides additional support for the use of a multidisciplinary approach to preventive screening, as in a patient-centred medical home. In a patient-centred medical home, a care team of physicians, nurses and office staff use technology such as clinical decision support to provide comprehensive, coordinated patient care.

Predictors of osteoporosis screening completion rates in a primary care practice.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommend routine osteoporosis screening for women aged 65 years or older. Previous studies have shown that the use of a clinical decision-support tool significantly improves screening rates. In a recently published study, a statistically significant improvement was found in the screening rates for eligible women with use of the tool. To evaluate whether a clinical decision-support tool independently predicts completion of osteoporosis screening tests and to identify predictors of screening completion, we examined the records of 2462 female patients who were eligible for osteoporosis screening but had no prior baseline screening and who were seen in our primary care practices in 2007 and 2008. Patient and provider characteristics and clinic visit type were identified, and their association with screening test completion was statistically analyzed using both univariate and multivariate models. Screening completion rates increased significantly from 2007 to 2008. Factors associated with increased likelihood of screening completion included race, marital status, residence, presence of comorbidity (cancer, rheumatologic disease), and the year and type of visit. Screening was less likely for women aged 80 years or older. The use of a point-of-care decision-support tool not only improved osteoporosis screening rates significantly but appeared to be an independent predictor of screening completion. It potentially can facilitate the systematic and effective delivery of preventive health services to patients in the primary care setting.