Associations Between General Vaccine Hesitancy and Healthcare Access Among Arkansans.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines provide protection against numerous diseases that can cause serious illness and death. However, vaccine hesitancy threatens to undermine progress in reducing preventable diseases and illness. Vaccine hesitancy has been shown to vary by sociodemographic characteristics. However, studies examining associations between healthcare access and vaccine hesitancy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Using a statewide random sample of Arkansas adults, we examined the relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access. DESIGN: From July 12 to 30, 2021, participants were contacted by landlines and cellular phones using random digit dialing. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1500 Arkansas adults were surveyed. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx adults were oversampled to ensure adequate representation. The survey had a cooperation rate of 20%. MAIN MEASURES: The dependent variable was an ordinal measure of general vaccine hesitancy. Age, gender, race, education, relationship status, and rural/urban residence were included in the model. Healthcare access was measured across four domains: (1) health insurance coverage; (2) having a primary care provider (PCP); (3) forgoing care due to cost; and (4) time since last routine checkup. The relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access was modeled using ordinal logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 48.5 years, 51.1% were women, 28% reported a race other than White, and 36.3% held a bachelor's degree or higher. Those with a PCP and those with health insurance had approximately two-thirds the odds of being more hesitant ([OR=0.63, CI=0.47, 0.84] and [OR=0.68; CI=0.49, 0.94]) than those without a PCP and those without health insurance. Participants reporting a routine checkup in the last 2 years were almost half as likely to be more hesitant than those reporting a checkup more than 2 years prior (OR=0.58; CI=0.43, 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest improving access to health insurance, PCPs, and routine preventative care services may be critical to reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Factors associated with breast cancer screening services use among women in the United States: An application of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.

This study applied Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use to examine predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with adherence to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer screening (BCS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors of BCS services utilization among 5484 women aged 50-74 from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. Predisposing factors significantly associated with use of BCS services were: being a Black (odds-ratios [OR]:1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.14-1.95) or a Hispanic woman (OR:2.25; CI:1.62-3.12); being married/partnered (OR:1.32, CI:1.12-1.55); having more than a bachelor's degree (OR: 1.62; CI:1.14-2.30); and living in rural areas (OR:0.72; CI:0.59-0.92). Enabling factors were: poverty level [≤138% federal poverty level (FPL) (OR:0.74; CI:0.56-0.97), >138-250% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.61-0.97), and > 250-400% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.63-0.94)]; being uninsured (OR:0.29; CI:0.21-0.40); having a usual source of care at a physician office (OR:7.27; CI:4.99-10.57) or other healthcare facilities (OR:4.12; CI:2.68-6.33); and previous breast examination by a healthcare professional (OR:2.10; CI:1.68-2.64). Need factors were: having fair/poor health (OR:0.76; CI:0.59-0.97) and being underweight (OR:0.46; CI:0.30-0.71). Disparities in BCS services utilization by Black and Hispanic women have been reduced. Disparities still exist for uninsured and financially restrained women living in rural areas. Addressing disparities in BCS uptake and improving adherence to USPSTF guidelines may require revamping policies that address disparities in enabling resources, such as health insurance, income, and health care access.

An Online Survey and Focus Groups for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures.

In order to design a cancer prevention promotion program in the region, suggestions were solicited at a medical center. We hypothesized that a majority would be native to state, and would be able to articulate about the barriers that may exist. Through online survey and focus groups, suggestions were sought, and the knowledge and the compliance with cancer prevention recommendations were assessed to determine the participants' qualifications as potential educators. Sixty-five point two percent of participants (n = 1018) graduated from high school in Arkansas. The most commonly given suggestions were to provide education to increase awareness, to use social media for promotion, to improve access, and to reduce costs. Self-reported adherence rates to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening were 82.6% (n = 954), 75.8% (n = 541), and 76.7% (n = 453), respectively. Having a personal history of cancer significantly increased colorectal cancer screening uptake (p = 0.04), but paradoxically decreased mammography uptake (p = 0.007). Salary of $40,000 and more and having a Bachelor's degree or higher were associated with higher compliance of Papanicolaou test only (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). A majority (67.7%, n = 1056) of respondents expressed willingness to contribute to promoting cancer prevention measures, and 38.3% (n = 559) were willing to participate in focus groups. However, only 6.3% (n = 35) actually participated. The participants' knowledge and compliance appeared to be sufficient, but their follow through in focus group participation was poor.

Assessing the Feasibility of an Online Module for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this pilot study were (1) to develop a cancer prevention module consisting of an animated video and a short questionnaire, (2) to assess new knowledge gained by the participants, and (3) to solicit feedback for improving the cancer prevention module. METHODS: Volunteers who previously agreed to be contacted regarding research studies were approached via email. After completing the cancer prevention module, a list of cancer prevention recommendations was provided. Newly gained knowledge was assessed, and feedback was solicited. RESULTS: Overall, 290 of 3165 individuals contacted completed the online module (9.2%), and 38.6% of the participants indicated that they learned something new about cancer prevention measures. A similar proportion, 41.4%, mentioned that they learned about measures that were recommended and due. Paradoxically, response rate was the lowest in the ≥50 year old age group although this group reported the highest rate of learning about new cancer prevention measures. Feedback was favorable in that 70.7% mentioned that the recommendations were helpful to them personally, 69.3% felt motivated to take action to reduce their risk of cancers, and 67% would recommend the online module to their friends and family. CONCLUSION: We developed an online cancer prevention module which seems to be suitable for promoting cancer prevention measures as feedback was favorable, and new knowledge was gained. Future efforts will focus on using the module to promote cancer prevention measures to the general public particularly for the ≥50 year age group.

Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmia in ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, results in non-ICM (NICM) patients are not satisfactory, and studies comparing differences between NICM and ICM are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of procedural characteristics and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation for VA, comparing results between ICM and NICM. METHODS: Studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. Four studies reporting comparison of catheter ablation of VA between ICM and NICM were examined. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. A random-effects model with inverse variance method was used for comparisons. RESULTS: Epicardial approach was significantly more undertaken for the NICM group than in the ICM group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.18; P < .00001). Mean ablation time (P = .54), fluoroscopy time (P = .55), and procedural time (P = .18) did not differ significantly between the ICM and NICM groups. Procedural failure rates (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.89; P = .02) and VA recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-1.01; P = .06) were significantly higher in the NICM group than in the ICM group. However, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.75-2.49; P = .31) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural failure and VA recurrence rates were significantly higher in the NICM group, despite significantly more frequent epicardial access. These highlight the limitations of catheter ablation for VA in NICM, given our current knowledge.

Examining aspects of successful community-based programs promoting cancer screening uptake to reduce cancer health disparity: A systematic review.

Certain minorities in the US are disproportionately burdened with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates. Programs encouraging timely uptake of cancer screening measures serve to reduce cancer health disparities. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the effectiveness and the qualities of these programs, and to elucidate characteristics of success programs to aid in designing of future ones. We focused on community-based programs rather than clinic-based programs as the former are more likely to reach disadvantaged populations, and on prevention programs for breast, cervical, and/or colon cancers as longstanding screening recommendations for these cancers exist. PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases were searched for articles that utilized community organizations and community health workers. Fourteen programs described in 34 manuscripts were identified. While 10 of 14 programs reported statistically significant increases in cancer prevention knowledge and/or increase in screening rates, only 7 of them enrolled large numbers of participants (defined as ≥1000). Only 7 programs had control groups, only 4 programs independently verified screening uptake, and 2 programs had long-term follow-up (defined as more than one screening cycle). Only one program demonstrated elimination of cancer health disparity at a population level. While most community-based cancer prevention programs have demonstrated efficacy in terms of increased knowledge and/or screening uptake, scalability and demonstration in reduction at a population level remain a challenge.

Evusheld, a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-directed attachment inhibitor, appears in serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation: a case study.

Serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) and immunofixation (IFE) assays are commonly used to diagnose and monitor patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Identifying analytical interferences in SPE and IFE caused by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (tmAbs) can be challenging. Here we report the case of a 72-year-old male with a long history of relapsed immunoglobulin (Ig)G kappa MM. A follow-up SPE showed the original peak plus 2 additional cathode peaks. Immunofixation was ordered as a reflex test to investigate the new peaks that showed initial patient monoclonal IgG kappa in addition to 2 restricted bands of the IgG kappa type. Therapeutic monoclonal antibody interference was suspected and the patient's chart was reviewed. The patient was not on any antimyeloma monoclonal antibody therapy. However, preexposure prophylaxis therapeutic monoclonal antibodies tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld) for severe acute SARS-CoV-2 was administered approximately 45 minutes before sample collection, which led to the identifiable spikes and correlated bands. After 2 days, the IgG kappa bands disappeared, confirming this therapy's effect on SPE and IFE. Therefore, clinical pathologists should be aware of when providers prescribe new monoclonal antibody therapy and become familiar with the position of commonly prescribed (tmAbs) therapies at their institutions.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Experiences of Discrimination Among Black Adults.

Early in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Black adults consistently reported more hesitancy than White adults, but few studies have examined variation in hesitancy among Black adults or its associations with racial discrimination. Data were collected from Black Arkansas residents age 18 and older (n = 350) between July 12th and July 30th, 2021, as part of a larger survey of Arkansans (N = 1500). Participants were recruited through random digit dialing of both landline and cell phones, with oversampling of Black and Hispanic residents. Respondents reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, sociodemographic information, influenza vaccination history, pandemic-related experiences, and experiences of racial discrimination. Almost half (48.9%) of Black adults in Arkansas were not hesitant towards COVID-19 vaccines, while the remainder reported some level of hesitancy. Nearly a quarter were very hesitant (22.4%), while fewer reported being somewhat (14.0%) and a little (14.7%) hesitant. Using an ordered logistic regression with partial proportional odds, we find odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased as age and influenza vaccination increased. Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were 1.70 times greater for Black adults who experienced the death of a close friend/family member due to COVID-19 and 2.61 times greater for individuals reporting discrimination with police or in the courts. Within-group analysis revealed nearly half of Black adults did not report any COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and heterogeneity among those who were hesitant. Findings suggest there may be an important link between racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black adults.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and racial discrimination among US adults.

Vaccination is a critical preventive measure to reduce COVID-19 health risks. We utilize full information maximum likelihood (FIML) logistic regression to analyze COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a national sample of United States (US) adults (N = 2,022). Online survey data was collected between September 7th and October 3rd, 2021. Before weighting, the racial composition of the sample was as follows: Asian American (15.0 %), Black/African American (20.0 %), Hispanic/Latino (20.0 %), American Indian or Alaska Native (12.6 %), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (12.5 %), and White (20.0 %). Informed by the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM), we assessed the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and experiences of racial discrimination (Krieger's 9-item measure). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were greater for most younger age groups, women (OR = 1.96; 95 % CI[1.54, 2.49]), Black/African American respondents (OR = 1.68; 95 % CI[1.18, 2.39]), those with a high school education or less (OR = 1.46; 95 % CI[1.08, 1.98]), Independent (OR = 1.77; 95 % CI[1.34, 2.35]) or Republican political affiliation (OR = 2.69; 95 % CI[1.92, 3.79]), and prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 1.78; 95 % CI[1.29, 2.45]). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were 1.04 greater for every-one unit increase in lifetime experiences of racial discrimination (95 % CI[1.02, 1.05]). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were lower for Asian American respondents (OR = 0.682; 95 % CI[0.480, 0.969]), and those who had a primary care doctor had reduced odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (OR = 0.735; 95 % CI[0.542, 0.998). Our primary finding provides support for a link between experiences of racial discrimination and hesitancy towards a COVID-19 vaccine among US adults. We discuss implications for public health officials and future research.

Cancer Screening Recommendations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the use of preventive health care services. Although there was an increase in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29% to 36% lower than in the prepandemic era. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. The literature review ranged from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. RESULTS: The articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, patients in certain age groups and sex, patients with a personal medical or family cancer history, patients that are currently symptomatic, and patients that are predisposed to hereditary cancers and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included identifying areas facing the most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods that do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers, and implementing or expanding mobile screening units. CONCLUSIONS: Although the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and underresourced areas after the pandemic has ended.

Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities in U.S. Men and Women Using a Demographically Representative Sample.

Timely receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce morbidity and mortality. This is the first known study to adopt Andersen's model of health services use to identify factors associated with CRC screening among US adults. The data from National Health Interview Survey from 2019 was utilized to conduct the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to separately analyze data from 7,503 age-eligible women and 6,486 age-eligible men. We found similar CRC screening levels among men (57.7%) and women (57.6%). Factors associated with higher screening odds in women were older age, married/cohabitating with a partner, Black race, >bachelor's degree, having a usual source of care, and personal cancer history. Factors associated with lower odds for women were American Indian/Alaska Native race, living in the US for ≤10 years, ≤138% federal poverty level (FPL), uninsured or having Medicare, and in fair/poor health. For men, factors associated with higher screening odds were older age, homosexuality, married/cohabitating with a partner, Black race, >high school/general educational development education, having military insurance, having a usual source of care, and personal cancer history. Factors associated with lower odds for men were being a foreign-born US resident, living in the South or Midwest, ≤138% FPL, and being uninsured or having other insurance. Despite lower screening rates in the past, Black adults show a significantly higher likelihood of CRC screening than White adults; yet, screening disparities remain in certain other groups. CRC screening efforts should continue to target groups with lower screening rates to eliminate screening disparities.

Association of psychological distress and current cigarette smoking among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander adults and compared to adults from other racial/ethnic groups: Data from the National Health Interview Survey, 2014.

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths worldwide. Research has documented an association between psychological distress and smoking among certain racial/ethnic groups but has not examined this association among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) adults. Data from the 2014 general and the NHPI-specific National Health Interview Surveys were analyzed at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Regional Campus (Fayetteville, AR) in April 2021 to determine the association between current cigarette smoking and levels of psychological distress among NHPI adults and to assess the difference in the magnitude of that association among NHPI adults compared to adults of other racial/ethnic groups in the United States. The final analytic sample (n = 34,782) included 1,916 NHPI, 20,430 White, 4,725 Black, 2,001 Asian, and 5,710 Hispanic adults. A significant association between current cigarette smoking and psychological distress levels was found among NHPI adults as well as among adults from other racial/ethnic groups. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the detected association among NHPI adults compared to the magnitude of the same association detected among adults of other racial/ethnic groups. However, this finding indicates race/ethnicity does not moderate the association between psychological distress and current cigarette smoking. Future studies should explore factors that may further explain the variation in current cigarette smoking within and across all racial/ethnic groups.

Parent/guardian intentions to vaccinate children against COVID-19 in the United States.

Vaccination is critical for protecting adults and children from COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Analyzing subsamples of parent/guardians of children age 0-11 (n = 343) and 12-17 (n = 322) from a larger national survey of US adults (n = 2,022), we aimed to assess intentions to vaccinate children and how intentions might vary across parent/guardian sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare coverage, vaccination status, political affiliation, prior COVID-19 infection, exposure to COVID-19 death(s) of family or friends, perceived norms of vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We also report the prevalence of vaccinated children for parents whose oldest child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey. More than one third of parents whose oldest child was not yet eligible for vaccination (11 or younger) planned to get them vaccinated right away when a vaccine became available to them. Among parents whose child was eligible to be vaccinated (age 12-17 years), approximately a third reported their child had already been vaccinated and approximately a third planned to do so right away. Intentions to vaccinate children age 0 to 11 were significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Intentions to vaccinate children age 12 to 17 were significantly associated with age, education, healthcare coverage, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We discuss implications for public health officials and for future research.

Associations between 5-year influenza vaccination and sociodemographic factors and healthcare access among Arkansans.

Despite wide availability, only 50.2% of the United States (US) adult population and 50.3% of adult Arkansans were vaccinated for influenza during the 2020-2021 influenza season. The proportion of the population vaccinated for influenza varies by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence, and income. However, measures of healthcare access have not been adequately investigated as predictors of influenza vaccination. Using a large, statewide random sample, this study examined 5-year influenza vaccination among Arkansans by sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence), general vaccine hesitancy, and healthcare access (having a primary care provider, having health insurance, forgoing health care due to cost, and frequency of doctor checkups). Older age, being female, being Hispanic, having a bachelor's degree or higher, having a primary care provider, visiting a doctor for a checkup in the past two years, and lack of hesitancy towards vaccines were significant predictors of receiving influenza vaccination.

Parents' and Guardians' Intentions to Vaccinate Children against COVID-19.

A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess Arkansas parents'/guardians' intentions to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Parents/guardians whose oldest child was age 0-11 years (n = 171) or 12-17 years (n = 198) were recruited between 12 July and 30 July 2021 through random digit dialing. Among parents/guardians with an age-eligible child, age 12-17, 19% reported their child had been vaccinated, and 34% reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Among parents/guardians with a child aged 0-11, 33% of parents/guardians reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 12-17 and 26% of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 0-11 reported they would only have their child vaccinated if their school required it; otherwise, they would definitely not vaccinate them. For both groups, parents'/guardians' education, COVID-19 vaccination status, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were significantly associated with intentions to vaccinate their child. More than a third of parents/guardians whose child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey reported they intended to have them vaccinated right away; however, they had not vaccinated their child more than two months after approval. This finding raises questions about the remaining barriers constraining some parents/guardians from vaccinating their child.

Comparing community-driven COVID-19 vaccine distribution methods: Faith-based organizations vs. outpatient clinics.

Background: Minority and low socioeconomic communities may face practical barriers to vaccination, including decreased access to health care and less trust in healthcare organizations; however, few studies have focused on these barriers as the cause of differential vaccine uptake. We worked with community partners to implement and evaluate two community-driven approaches to COVID-19 vaccination distribution-through faith-based organizations (FBOs) and outpatient clinics-with a focus on understanding the differences between the populations who accessed each distribution method. Methodology: Participants who came to the vaccination locations were approached and asked to complete a survey during their 15 min post-vaccination observation period. Differences between distribution locations were examined using Chi-square tests. Results: The survey rendered 1,476 valid responses, with a total of 927 participants recruited at clinical locations and 519 at FBOs during vaccination events. There were significant differences by race/ethnicity, with distribution methods at FBOs reaching a higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants. The proportion of uninsured participants who had lower health literacy and had lower educational attainment was higher with the FBO distribution method. FBO participants were more likely to report "completely" trusting the COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference between FBO and clinic participants with regard to the level of vaccine hesitancy. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to access. Conclusion: A higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants utilized FBOs for vaccination, suggesting collaborations with FBOs can potentially increase vaccination uptake among minority communities and help mitigate vaccination disparities.

Quantitative texture-based assessment of one-year changes in fibrotic reticular patterns on HRCT in scleroderma lung disease treated with oral cyclophosphamide.

OBJECTIVES: The Scleroderma Lung Study showed the efficacy of cyclophosphamide in modestly improving the forced vital capacity (FVC) compared with placebo over 1 year. Using changes in texture-based scores that quantify lung fibrosis as the percentage involvement of reticulation patterns, the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide was re-assessed by examining its impact on quantitative lung fibrosis (QLF). METHODS: Axial HRCT images were acquired (1-mm slice thickness, 10-mm increments) in the prone position at inspiration. A validated model for quantifying interstitial disease patterns was applied to images from 83 subjects at baseline and 12 months. Scores were calculated for six zones (upper, mid, lower of the right/left lung) and the whole lung. Average changes were compared. Correlations were performed between QLF and physiological and clinical scores. RESULTS: From the most severe zones identified at baseline, QLF scores decreased by 2.6% in the cyclophosphamide group, whereas they increased by 9.1% in the placebo group, leading to ~12% difference (p = 0.0027). Between-treatment difference in whole lung QLF was ~5% (p = 0.0190). Significant associations were observed between changes in QLF and FVC (r = -0.33), dyspnea score (r = -0.29), and consensus visual score (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: QLF scores provide an objective quantitative tool for assessing treatment efficacy in scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease.

Sociodemographic Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Fear of Infection, and Protection Self-Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Arkansas COVID-19 vaccine uptake has been lower than the national average. This study examined associations between sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, fear of infection, and protection self-efficacy. METHODS: Adults either residing, having employment, or receiving health care in Arkansas (n = 754) participated in an online survey between October 30, 2020 and January 16, 2021. Participants were recruited in both rural and urban areas from 6 Arkansas primary care clinics. Survey questions addressed sociodemographic factors, COVID-19 infection fear, protection self-efficacy, and COVID-19 vaccine attitudes. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between dependent variables and respondents' sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 infection fear, and COVID-19 protection self-efficacy. RESULTS: About 38% of participants reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Age, sex, race, and education were significantly associated with COVID-19 and general vaccine attitudes. Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased as age increased (OR = 0.98; P < .01). Women had higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than men (OR = 1.52; P < .05). Respondents with a high school diploma and below and respondents with some college or a technical degree had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (OR = 2.58; P < .001; and OR = 1.97; P < .01, respectively) compared to respondents with a 4-year college degree. Black/African American respondents had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to White respondents (OR = 3.08; P < .001). No significant difference was observed among rural and urban respondents regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy; however, respondents in rural areas were more likely to report low general vaccine trust compared to those in urban areas (OR = 1.87; P < .01). Respondents reporting no fear (OR = 5.51; P < .001) and very little fear (OR = 1.95; P < .05) of COVID-19 had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to respondents who feared COVID-19 infection to a great extent. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and general trust in vaccines differ significantly among age, sex, race, and education. These trust and hesitancy patterns are challenges for achieving population immunity and follow similar patterns of vulnerability to COVID-19. Vaccination programs and interventions must consider these differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and general vaccine trust to alleviate COVID-19 disparities. Findings make a significant contribution in evaluating vaccine hesitancy among a large, diverse sample from a rural state.

"The Risk Seems Too High": Thoughts and Feelings about COVID-19 Vaccination.

The purpose of this study was to describe the thoughts and feelings of individuals expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in order to examine the thoughts and feelings of participants who are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were collected from 754 participants using an online instrument. Emergent themes included a lack of knowledge about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine; concerns over the speed of development, testing, and approval of these vaccines; reluctance to be among the first vaccinated; concerns about the motivations of government actors, pharmaceutical companies, and others involved in producing the COVID-19 vaccine; and hesitancy about vaccines generally.

Outcomes of uninterrupted vs interrupted Periprocedural direct oral Anticoagulants in atrial Fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that uninterrupted anticoagulation (UA) is superior to interrupted anticoagulation (IA) in the periprocedural period during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Still IA is followed in many centers considering the bleeding risk. This meta-analysis compares interrupted and uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A systematic search into PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases was performed and five studies were selected that directly compared IA vs UA before ablation and reported procedural outcomes, embolic, and bleeding events. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 840 patients with UA and 938 patients with IA. Median follow-up was 30 days. Activated clotting time (ACT) before first heparin bolus was significantly longer with UA (P = .006), whereas mean ACT was similar between the two groups (P = .19). Total heparin dose needed was significantly higher with IA (mean, ‒1.61; 95% CI, ‒2.67 to ‒0.55; P = .003). Mean procedure time did not vary between groups (P = .81). Overall complication rates were low, with similar major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular event (P = .40) and total bleeding (P = .55) rates between groups. Silent cerebral events (SCEs) were significantly more frequent with IA (log odds ratio, ‒0.90; 95% CI, ‒1.59 to ‒0.22; P < .01; I 2, 33%). Rates of major bleeding, minor bleeding, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, and puncture complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: UA during atrial fibrillation ablation has similar bleeding event rates, procedural times, and mean ACTs as IA, with fewer SCEs.