Race and ethnicity and pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes.

Background: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Equitable use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA has the potential to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities. We evaluated trends in pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA by race and ethnicity. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes using 2014-2022 electronic health record data from six US care delivery systems. Entry was at earliest pharmacy dispensing of any type 2 diabetes medication. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2i and GLP1-RA and race and ethnicity. Findings: Our cohort included 687,165 patients (median 6 years of dispensing data; median 60 years; 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), 16.6% Asian, 10.5% Black, 1.4% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (HPI), 31.1% Hispanic, 3.8% Other, and 36.3% White). SGLT2i was lower for AI/AN (OR 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.94), Black (0.89, 0.86-0.92) and Hispanic (0.87, 0.85-0.89) compared to White patients. GLP-1 RA was lower for AI/AN (0.78, 0.63-0.97), Asian (0.50, 0.48-0.53), Black (0.86, 0.83-0.90), HPI (0.52, 0.46-0.57), Hispanic (0.69, 0.66-0.71), and Other (0.78, 0.73-0.83) compared to White patients. Interpretation: Dispensing of SGLT2is, and GLP-1 RAs was lower in minority group patients. There is a need to evaluate approaches to increase use of these cardiorenal protective drugs in patients from racial and ethnic minority groups with type 2 diabetes to reduce adverse cardiorenal outcomes and improve health equity. Funding: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and National Institutes of Health.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among non-US-born populations in the United States, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: In the United States (US), COVID-19 vaccination rates among non-US-born individuals (i.e., refugees, immigrants, and migrants [RIM]) are variable. Understanding baseline COVID-19 vaccine coverage among these populations and determining if disparities exist is essential for quality improvement initiatives and public health interventions. METHODS: Baseline COVID-19 vaccination rates for both primary series and booster doses were calculated at four health systems located in Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania participating in the Minnesota Department of Health's Center of Excellence in Newcomer Health. Patients aged ≥5 years as of 1/1/22, seen for ≥1 primary care visit during 7/1/2019-6/30/22 were included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for three measures of COVID-19 vaccine coverage during 12/14/2020-6/30/2022: 1) initiation of primary series; 2) completion of primary series; 3) completion of first booster. We calculated vaccine coverage rates for the entire population and stratified by subgroup including country of origin, refugee status, and primary language preference. RESULTS: We included 1,624,573 patients eligible for COVID-19 primary series vaccine and 907,749 eligible for COVID-19 booster vaccination. The percent of eligible patients who completed a COVID-19 primary series (63.4 %) and booster dose (66.2 %) were similar. Completion of the primary series was higher for non-US-born persons (72.7 %) compared with US born persons (65.4 %), similar among refugees (63.5 %) and non-refugees (63.4 %), and lower in patients with language preference other than English (62.7 %) compared with English preferring patients (63.6 %). Booster completion was lower for non-US-born persons (61.8 %), refugees (46.7 %), and patients with language preference other than English (55.3 %) compared with US-born (70 %), non-refugees (66.3 %), and English preferring patients (67.3 %) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates among non-US-born persons and persons with a language preference other than English living in the US. Targeted outreach efforts may be beneficial in reaching these populations.

Bedaquiline for treatment of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) infections are increasing in incidence and associated mortality. NTM are naturally resistant to a variety of antibiotics, complicating treatment. We conducted a literature assessment on the efficacy of bedaquiline in treating NTM species in vitro and in vivo (animal models and humans); meta-analyses were performed where possible. METHOD: Four databases were searched using specific terms. Publications were included according to predefined criteria. Bedaquiline's impact on NTM in vitro, MICs and epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values were evaluated. A meta-analysis of bedaquiline efficacy against NTM infections in animal models was performed. Culture conversion, cure and/or relapse-free cure were used to evaluate the efficacy of bedaquiline in treating NTM infection in humans. RESULTS: Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria: 33 assessed bedaquiline's impact on NTM in vitro, 9 in animal models and 8 in humans. Three studies assessed bedaquiline's efficacy both in vitro and in vivo. Due to data paucity, an ECOFF value of 0.5 mg/mL was estimated for Mycobacterium abscessus only. Meta-analysis of animal studies showed a 1.86× reduction in bacterial load in bedaquiline-treated versus no treatment within 30 days. In humans, bedaquiline-including regimens were effective in treating NTM extrapulmonary infection but not pulmonary infection. CONCLUSIONS: Bedaquiline demonstrated strong antibacterial activity against various NTM species and is a promising drug to treat NTM infections. However, data on the genomic mutations associated with bedaquiline resistance were scarce, preventing statistical analyses for most mutations and NTM species. Further studies are urgently needed to better inform treatment strategies.

Mountain Bike Injury Incidence and Risk Factors Among Members of a Wisconsin Mountain Bike Club.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the incidence of and risk factors for mountain bike injuries among users of a local mountain bike trail system. METHODS: An email survey was sent to 1,800 member households, and 410 (23%) responded. Exact Poisson test was used to calculate rate ratios, and a generalized linear model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The injury incidence rate was 3.6 injuries per 1,000 person-hours of riding, with beginners at a significantly higher risk compared to advanced riders (rate ratio = 2.6, 95% CI, 1.4-4.4). However, only 0.4% of beginners required medical attention, compared to 3% of advanced riders. CONCLUSIONS: More injuries occur among beginning riders, but the injuries are more severe with experienced riders, suggesting higher risk-taking or less attention to safety measures.

Enhanced VWF clearance in low VWF pathogenesis: limitations of the VWFpp/VWF:Ag ratio and clinical significance.

Increased von Willebrand factor (VWF) clearance plays a key role in the pathogenesis of type 1 and type 2 von Willebrand disease (VWD). However, the pathological mechanisms involved in patients with mild to moderate reductions in plasma VWF:Ag (range, 30-50 IU/dL; low VWF) remain poorly understood. In this study, we investigated the hypothesis that enhanced VWF clearance may contribute to the pathobiology of low VWF. Patients with low VWF were recruited to the LoVIC study after ethics approval and receipt of informed consent. Desmopressin was administered IV in 75 patients, and blood samples were drawn at baseline and at the 1-hour and 4-hour time points. As defined by recent ASH/ISTH/NHF/WFH guidelines, 20% of our low-VWF cohort demonstrated significantly enhanced VWF clearance. Importantly, from a clinical perspective, this enhanced VWF clearance was seen after desmopressin infusion, but did not affect the steady-state VWF propeptide (VWFpp)-to-VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) ratio (VWFpp/VWF:Ag) in most cases. The discrepancy between the VWFpp/VWF:Ag ratio and desmopressin fall-off rates in patients with mild quantitative VWD may have reflected alteration in VWFpp clearance kinetics. Finally, bleeding scores were significantly lower in patients with low VWF with enhanced VWF clearance, compared with those in whom reduced VWF biosynthesis represented the principle pathogenic mechanism. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03167320.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components. RESULTS: Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system. CONCLUSION: Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Nine years of smoking data from incarcerated men: A call to action for tobacco dependence interventions.

People who are incarcerated use tobacco in high numbers before incarceration and the vast majority resume tobacco use soon after release despite institutional smoking bans. Nine years of surveys collected at a correctional facility in the Midwest, U.S., were analyzed to identify the needs of this high-risk population and suggest future directions for research and intervention development. For the most part, survey respondents considered themselves no longer addicted to tobacco and intended to remain tobacco free after release. They increasingly expected support to remain tobacco free from their home environment despite no change in home tobacco use. Over this nine-year period, significantly fewer respondents wanted materials and help to remain tobacco free, suggesting they have become more challenging to assist. Implications for intervention development and future research are discussed.

A comprehensive electronic health record-enabled smoking treatment program: Evaluating reach and effectiveness in primary care in a multiple baseline design.

Effective treatments for smoking cessation exist but are underused. Proactive chronic care approaches may enhance the reach of cessation treatment and reduce the prevalence of smoking in healthcare systems. This pragmatic study evaluated a population-based Comprehensive Tobacco Intervention Program (CTIP) implemented in all (6) adult primary care clinics in a Madison, Wisconsin, USA healthcare cooperative, assessing treatment reach, reach equity, and effectiveness in promoting smoking cessation. CTIP launched in 3 waves of 2 clinics each in a multiple baseline design. Electronic health record (EHR) tools facilitated clinician-delivered pharmacotherapy and counseling; guiding tobacco care managers in phone outreach to all patients who smoke; and prompting multimethod bulk outreach to all patients on a smoking registry using an opt-out approach. EHR data were analyzed to assess CTIP reach and effectiveness among 6894 adult patients between January 2018 and February 2020. Cessation treatment reach increased significantly after CTIP launch in 5 of 6 clinics and was significantly higher when clinics were active vs. inactive in CTIP [Odds Ratio (OR) range = 2.0-3.0]. Rates of converting from current to former smoking status were also higher in active vs. inactive clinics (OR range = 2.2-10.5). Telephone treatment reach was particularly high in historically underserved groups, including African-American, Hispanic, and Medicaid-eligible patients. Implementation of a comprehensive, opt-out, chronic-care program aimed at all patients who smoke was associated with increases in the rates of pharmacotherapy and counseling delivery and quitting smoking. Proactive outreach may help reduce disparities in treatment access.

Operationalizing Leadership and Clinician Buy-In to Implement Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Programs in Routine Oncology Care: A Mixed-Method Study of the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Delivering evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment in oncology settings improves smoking abstinence and cancer outcomes. Leadership engagement/buy-in is critical for implementation success, but few studies have defined buy-in or described how to secure buy-in for tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) in cancer care. This study examines buy-in during the establishment of tobacco treatment programs at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. METHODS: We utilized a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative data and qualitative interviews with program leads in the U.S.-based NCI Moonshot-supported Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (n = 20 Centers). We calculated descriptive statistics and applied structural coding and content analysis to qualitative data. RESULTS: At least 75% of participating centers secured health care system administrative, clinical, and IT leadership buy-in and support. Six themes emerged from interviews: engaging leadership, access to resources, leveraging federal funding support to build leadership interest, designating champions, identifying training needs, and ensuring staff roles and IT systems support workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Buy-in among staff and clinicians is defined by the belief that the TTP is necessary, valuable, and evidence based. Recognizing and securing these dimensions of buy-in can facilitate implementation success, leading to improved cancer outcomes.

One Year Into the Pandemic: Evolving COVID-19 Outcomes in Lung Transplant Recipients, a Single-center Experience.

In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our center reported a mortality rate of 34% in a cohort of 32 lung transplant recipients with COVID-19 between March and May 2020. Since then, there has been evolving knowledge in prevention and treatments of COVID-19. To evaluate the impact of these changes, we describe the clinical presentation, management, and outcomes of a more recent cohort of lung transplant recipients during the second surge and provide a comparison with our first cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included all consecutive lung transplant recipients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between November 2020 and February 28, 2021. We compared baseline demographics and major outcomes between the first- and second-surge cohorts. Results: We identified 47 lung transplant recipients (median age, 60; 51% female) who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between November 2020 and February 28, 2021. The current cohort had a higher proportion of patients with mild disease (34% versus 16%) and fewer patients with a history of obesity (4% versus 25%). Sixty-six percent (n = 31) required hospitalization and were treated with remdesivir (90%) and dexamethasone (84%). Among those hospitalized, 77% (n = 24) required supplemental oxygen, and 22% (n = 7) required invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall 90-d mortality decreased from 34% to 17% from the first cohort to the second (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.85; P = 0.026). Conclusions: Although COVID-19-associated mortality rate in lung transplant recipients at our center has decreased over time, COVID-19 continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Missing Out: Underutilization of Primary Care by Wisconsin Patients Who Smoke and Its Implications for Tobacco Treatment Access.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco dependence treatment is usually offered in primary care settings. Yet, if many patients who smoke do no not access primary care, cessation interventions may be missing those who most need them. This study describes Wisconsin adults' health care utilization by smoking status. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 1726 individuals participating in a population-based, cross-sectional, in-person health survey of Wisconsin residents (2014-2016). Demographic characteristics were compared across smoking status using Wald chi-square tests weighted for the complex survey design. Odds ratios were calculated using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1726 respondents, 15.3% reported current smoking, 25.4% former smoking, and 59.4% never smoking. Those currently smoking were more likely than former- or never-smoking respondents to report emergency departments as their "usual place to go when sick" (12% vs 3%) or report they had "no place to go when sick" (16% vs 7%). People who currently smoke also reported more emergency department visits during the past year (mean = 1.4 visits) than did others (mean = 0.4, P< 0.01). Among those currently smoking, 18% reported that they "needed health care but didn't get it" over the past year, compared to 6% of others (P< 0.01). Those currently smoking also were more likely to report a "delay in getting care" (16% vs 9%, P = 0.02) and were less likely to have had a "general health checkup" within the past year (58% vs 70%, P< 0.02). These relationships persisted in logistic regression models controlling for variables related to smoking status and health care utilization, including health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that more than a quarter of Wisconsin adults who smoke do not receive primary care every year and that they delay care or seek care in emergency departments more frequently than do those who never smoked or who quit smoking. As a result, such individuals may be missing out on evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment.

Identification of the blue light intensity administered to one eye required to suppress bovine plasma melatonin and investigation into effects on milk production in grazing dairy cows.

Long-day photoperiod is known to positively affect milk production in confinement dairy systems, and it has been hypothesized that pineal melatonin (MT) secretion plays a substantial role in this process. Specialized mammalian photoreceptors that regulate MT secretion are optimally stimulated by short wavelength blue light. We investigated the blue light intensity administered to one eye required to suppress MT secretion in nonlactating dairy cows, and subsequently examined effects on milk production in grazing dairy cows. Following a 14-d light-dark 8:16 h environmental conditioning period, 5 nonlactating Holstein-Friesian cows were exposed to treatments of <1, 70, 125, 175, and 225 lx for 8 additional hours using a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Light was administered via headpieces fitted with light-emitting diodes emitting blue light (465 nm) to the right eye. All cows were then exposed to a light-dark 16:8 h cycle for one night via the indoor lighting system (>200 lx white light). Plasma samples collected at regular intervals were assayed for MT. A dose-dependent effect of light treatment on mean circulating MT concentrations (and 95% CI) was observed [9.4 (7.2, 12.3), 5.0 (3.8, 6.6), 4.4 (3.3, 5.7), 3.3 (2.5, 4.3) and 1.7 (1.3, 2.3) pg/mL for treatments of 0, 70, 125, 175, and 225 lx, respectively. Only the 225 lx treatment acutely suppressed plasma melatonin concentration to levels similar to the light-dark 16:8 h treatment [1.9 (1.4, 2.5) pg/mL]. Forty spring-calving cows were blocked on parity, calving date and Economic Breeding Index for milk production and assigned to the control treatment or blue light to a single eye (LT) treatment from calving through 32 wk of lactation. The cows assigned to LT treatment were fitted with headpieces providing 225 lx of blue light to the right eye from 1700 until 0000 h. Mean milk production (and 95% CI) during 32 wk of lactation was not affected by treatment [20.3 (19.3, 21.3) vs. 20.9 (19.8, 22.0) kg/d, control and LT, respectively]. Within multiparous cows, a treatment by week interaction was detected, whereby LT treatment increased milk production during the first 12 wk of lactation [25.8 (24.3, 27.3) vs. 28.0 (26.5, 29.5) kg/d; +8.5%], but had no effect thereafter. Treatment did not affect plasma insulin-like growth factor 1. We identified the blue light intensity to one eye required to acutely suppress MT concentrations. Transient favorable effects on milk production were observed in multiparous cows. It remains unclear how single-eye blue light treatment affects galactopoiesis in grazing dairy cows, and further research is needed to explore whether this modality of light delivery represents a useful means to aid productivity in pasture-based dairy systems.