Real-world Experience of Sotrovimab in High-risk, Immunocompromised COVID-19 Patients.

We completed a real-world analysis of 498 consecutive high-risk nonimmunocompromised and immunocompromised patients who received sotrovimab during the B.1.1.529 surge. Emergency department visits/hospitalizations and 30-day all-cause mortality between the 2 groups were similar. When administered early, sotrovimab is effective at preventing coronavirus disease 2019 progression in immunocompromised and nonimmunocompromised patients.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity and antibody prevalence among asymptomatic hospital-based health care workers.

BACKGROUND: The level of asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 could be substantial and among health care workers (HCWs) a source of continuing transmission of the virus to patients and co-workers. OBJECTIVES: Measure the period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among a random sample of asymptomatic health system hospital-based health care workers (HCWs) 6½ -15½ weeks after 4/5/2020, the peak of the first surge of COVID-19 admissions. RESULTS: Of 524 eligible and consented participants from four metropolitan hospitals, nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 439 (83.8 %) and blood from 374 (71.4 %). Using PCR nucleic acid-based amplification (NAAT) methods, the period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.23 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.01 %-1.28 %; 1/439) from 5/21/20-7/16/20. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies from June 17-July 24, 2020 was 2.41 % (95 % CI 1.27 %-4.51 %; 9/374). Those who were reactive were younger (median age 36 versus 44 years; p = 0.050), and those with self-reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity had a higher seroprevalence (2/12 = 16.7 % versus 7/352 = 2.0 %; p = 0.051). There were no significant differences by sex, race, residence, hospital, unit or job type. The one employee who was found to be PCR test positive in this study was also reactive for IgG antibodies, tested 27 days later. CONCLUSIONS: The period prevalence of PCR positivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IgG seroprevalence was unexpectedly low in asymptomatic HCWs after a peak in COVID-19 admissions and the establishment of state and institutional infection control policies, suggesting that routine screening tests while community prevalence is relatively low would produce a minimal yield.

Improving osteoporosis screening: results from a randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations, osteoporosis screening rates among women aged 65 years and older remain low. We present results from a clustered, randomized trial evaluating patient mailed reminders, alone and in combination with physician prompts, to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment. METHODS: Primary care clinics (n = 15) were randomized to usual care, mailed reminders alone, or mailed reminders with physician prompts. Study patients were females aged 65-89 years (N = 10,354). Using automated clinical and pharmacy data, information was collected on bone mineral density testing, pharmacy dispensings, and other patient characteristics. Unadjusted/adjusted differences in testing and treatment were assessed using generalized estimating equation approaches. RESULTS: Osteoporosis screening rates were 10.8% in usual care, 24.1% in mailed reminder, and 28.9% in mailed reminder with physician prompt. Results adjusted for differences at baseline indicated that mailed reminders significantly improved testing rates compared to usual care, and that the addition of prompts further improved testing. This effect increased with patient age. Treatment rates were 5.2% in usual care, 8.4% in mailed reminders, and 9.1% in mailed reminders with prompt. No significant differences were found in treatment rates between those receiving mailed reminders alone or in combination with physician prompts. However, women receiving usual care were significantly less likely to be treated. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mailed reminders, either alone or with physician prompts, can significantly improve osteoporosis screening and treatment rates among insured primary care patients (Clinical Trials.gov number NCT00139425).

Bipolar disorder detection, ascertainment, and treatment: primary care physician knowledge, attitudes, and awareness.

OBJECTIVE: To describe knowledge, attitudes, and awareness of bipolar disorder detection, ascertainment, and treatment among primary care physicians in a managed care setting. METHOD: Quota sampling was used to obtain 102 completed surveys assessing knowledge, attitudes, and awareness of bipolar disorder from a pool of 350 primary care physicians in a large, vertically integrated Midwestern health system from June 2004 through August 2004. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the distribution of the study results at the physician level. RESULTS: Primary care physicians are experiencing challenges in diagnosing and treating bipolar patients, who can be difficult and time-consuming. In answering questions about major depressive episode and manic episode symptoms, at least 15% of respondents assessed most symptoms incorrectly. In analyzing 3 case studies, 9%, 11%, and 28% of respondents, respectively, answered all of the questions correctly. When asked which drugs are U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved for the maintenance treatment of adults with bipolar I disorder, no survey respondent replied correctly for all drugs listed. Importantly, our survey also indicates that these physicians are very willing to refer bipolar patients to psychiatrists for evaluation and treatment, which may help to ensure optimal care. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities for improvement exist in diagnosing and treating patients with bipolar disorder in the primary care setting, perhaps aided by guidelines, education, and a collaborative care model with psychiatry.

Reduction of high-risk polypharmacy drug combinations in patients in a managed care setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To enhance physician and patient awareness of polypharmacy; to decrease the risks, drug costs, and waste resulting from polypharmacy; and to make the business case for reducing misuse, overuse, and underuse of drugs by reducing polypharmacy. DESIGN: Longitudinal, time series cohort. SETTING: Outpatient, managed care, integrated delivery system. PATIENTS: A total of 195,971 patients who received health care from the Henry Ford Medical Group and had health insurance coverage from the Health Alliance Plan. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two identical interventions separated by 1 year were conducted in patients at high risk of harm from polypharmacy based on five categories of high-risk drug combinations (referred to as polypharmacy events). Six months of pharmacy claims data were reviewed before and after each intervention to identify these patients. The intervention program consisted of clinical pharmacists performing drug therapy reviews, educating physicians and patients about drug safety and polypharmacy, and working with physicians and patients to correct polypharmacy problems. Prescription cost/member/month, number of prescriptions/member/month, and rates of polypharmacy events/1000 members were measured before and after each of the two interventions. After the first intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events decreased from 29.01 to 9.43/1000 patients (67.5% reduction). The number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.6 to 2.2 (52.2% reduction), prescription cost/member/month decreased from $222 to $113 (49.1% reduction), and overall institution drug cost was reduced by $4.8 million. Six months after the second intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events was reduced from 27.99 to 17.07/1000 (39% reduction), the number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.5 to 4.0 (11.1% reduction), and prescription cost/member/month decreased from $264 to $239 (9.5% reduction). Overall institution drug costs were reduced by $1.3 million. Sustained effects were seen for all measures of polypharmacy (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These interventions reduced drug costs and numbers of prescriptions in a managed care cohort of patients at high risk for adverse drug events due to polypharmacy. By providing clinical information, decision support, patient self-management support, and care delivery redesign some of the problems resulting from polypharmacy can be solved.