Current use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives or hormone therapy and risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization: a population-based cohort study.

This population-based cohort study evaluated the association between current use of oral contraceptives (OC) among women under 50 years (n=306,541), and hormone therapy (HT) among women aged 50 or older (n=323,203), and COVID-19 infection and hospitalization. Current OC/HT use was recorded monthly using prescription dispensing data. COVID-19 infections were identified March 2020-February 2021. COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were identified through diagnosis codes and laboratory tests. Weighted generalized estimating equations models estimated multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for COVID-19 infection associated with time-varying OC/HT use. Among women with COVID-19, logistic regression models evaluated OC/HT use and COVID-19 hospitalization. Over 12 months, 11,727 (3.8%) women <50 years and 8,661 (2.7%) women ≥50 years experienced COVID-19 infections. There was no evidence of an association between OC use and infection (aOR=1.05; 95%CI: 0.97, 1.12). There was a modest association between HT use and infection (aOR=1.19; 95%CI: 1.03, 1.38). Women using OC had a 39% lower risk of hospitalization (aOR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.38, 1.00), but there was no association of HT use with hospitalization (aOR=0.89; 95%CI: 0.51, 1.53). These findings do not suggest a meaningfully greater risk of COVID-19 infection associated with OC or HT use. OC use may be associated with lower COVID-19 hospitalization risk.

Prevention and Attenuation of Covid-19 with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Information is limited regarding the effectiveness of the two-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in preventing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in attenuating coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) when administered in real-world conditions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving 3975 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers. From December 14, 2020, to April 10, 2021, the participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing by providing mid-turbinate nasal swabs for qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. The formula for calculating vaccine effectiveness was 100% × (1 - hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants), with adjustments for the propensity to be vaccinated, study site, occupation, and local viral circulation. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 participants (5%), of whom 5 were fully vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 2), 11 partially vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 1 and <14 days after dose 2), and 156 unvaccinated; the 32 participants with indeterminate vaccination status (<14 days after dose 1) were excluded. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76 to 97) with full vaccination and 81% (95% CI, 64 to 90) with partial vaccination. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean viral RNA load was 40% lower (95% CI, 16 to 57) in partially or fully vaccinated participants than in unvaccinated participants. In addition, the risk of febrile symptoms was 58% lower (relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98) and the duration of illness was shorter, with 2.3 fewer days spent sick in bed (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7). CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection when administered in real-world conditions, and the vaccines attenuated the viral RNA load, risk of febrile symptoms, and duration of illness among those who had breakthrough infection despite vaccination. (Funded by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection History and Antibody Response to 3 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Messenger RNA Vaccine Doses.

BACKGROUND: Data on antibody kinetics are limited among individuals previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). From a cohort of healthcare personnel and other frontline workers in 6 US states, we assessed antibody waning after messenger RNA (mRNA) dose 2 and response to dose 3 according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. METHODS: Participants submitted sera every 3 months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each mRNA vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in AUC values over time were compared using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Analysis included 388 participants who received dose 3 by November 2021. There were 3 comparison groups: vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); infection prior to dose 1 (n = 123); and infection after dose 2 and before dose 3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8 months. After dose 3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-3.0) in group 2 and 2.9-fold (95% CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose 3 (and median 233 days [interquartile range, 213-246] after dose 2) did not increase significantly after dose 3. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection <3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.

Risk Factors for Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant among Previously Infected Frontline Workers.

In a cohort of essential workers in the United States previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for reinfection included being unvaccinated, infrequent mask use, time since first infection, and being non-Hispanic Black. Protecting workers from reinfection requires a multipronged approach including up-to-date vaccination, mask use as recommended, and reduction in underlying health disparities.

Association Between Diabetes Severity and Risks of COVID-19 Infection and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether diabetes increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and whether measures of diabetes severity are related to COVID-19 outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Investigate diabetes severity measures as potential risk factors for COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 outcomes. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, MEASURES: In integrated healthcare systems in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, we identified a cohort of adults on February 29, 2020 (n = 1,086,918) and conducted follow-up through February 28, 2021. Electronic health data and death certificates were used to identify markers of diabetes severity, covariates, and outcomes. Outcomes were COVID-19 infection (positive nucleic acid antigen test, COVID-19 hospitalization, or COVID-19 death) and severe COVID-19 (invasive mechanical ventilation or COVID-19 death). Individuals with diabetes (n = 142,340) and categories of diabetes severity measures were compared with a referent group with no diabetes (n = 944,578), adjusting for demographic variables, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 30,935 patients with COVID-19 infection, 996 met the criteria for severe COVID-19. Type 1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.27-1.57) and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.31) were associated with increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Insulin treatment was associated with greater COVID-19 infection risk (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.52) than treatment with non-insulin drugs (OR 1.26, 95% 1.20-1.33) or no treatment (OR 1.24; 1.18-1.29). The relationship between glycemic control and COVID-19 infection risk was dose-dependent: from an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.15-1.26) for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7% to an OR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.51-1.75) for HbA1c ≥ 9%. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes (OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.99-4.15), type 2 diabetes (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.55-2.09), insulin treatment (OR 2.65; 95% CI 2.13-3.28), and HbA1c ≥ 9% (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.94-3.52). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes and greater diabetes severity were associated with increased risks of COVID-19 infection and worse COVID-19 outcomes.

Serum per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance concentrations and longitudinal change in post-infection and post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous throughout the United States. Previous studies have shown PFAS exposure to be associated with a reduced immune response. However, the relationship between serum PFAS and antibody levels following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination has not been examined. We examined differences in peak immune response and the longitudinal decline of antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination by serum PFAS levels in a cohort of essential workers in the United States. We measured serum antibodies using an in-house semi-quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Two cohorts contributed blood samples following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination. We used linear mixed regression models, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender, presence of chronic conditions, location, and occupation, to estimate differences in immune response with respect to serum PFAS levels. Our study populations included 153 unvaccinated participants that contributed 316 blood draws over a 14-month period following infection, and 860 participants and 2451 blood draws over a 12-month period following vaccination. Higher perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) concentrations were associated with a lower peak antibody response after infection (p = 0.009, 0.031, 0.015). Higher PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), PFHxS, and PFNA concentrations were associated with slower declines in antibodies over time after infection (p = 0.003, 0.014, 0.026, 0.025). PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA serum concentrations prior to vaccination were not associated with differences in peak antibody response after vaccination or with differences in decline of antibodies over time after vaccination. These results suggest that elevated PFAS may impede potential immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection by blunting peak antibody levels following infection; the same finding was not observed for immune response to vaccination.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Neutralizing Antibody Response to Pseudotype Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Differs Between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines and by History of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are limited. METHODS: From a prospective cohort of 3975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August 2020 to March 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum-neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t tests and linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed nAbs with a GMT of 1003 (95% confidence interval, 766-1315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAbs after mRNA vaccine dose 2 with a GMT of 3257 (2596-4052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT, 4698; 3186-6926) compared with BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT, 2309; 1825-2919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21 655 (14 766-31 756) after mRNA vaccine dose 1, without further increase after dose 2. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAbs to SARS-CoV-2 than after 1 dose of vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection alone. nAb response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.

Association of COVID-19 vs Influenza With Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: The incidence of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in persons with COVID-19 remains unclear. Objective: To measure the 90-day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before or during COVID-19 vaccine availability vs patients hospitalized with influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 41 443 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (April-November 2020), 44 194 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (December 2020-May 2021), and 8269 patients hospitalized with influenza (October 2018-April 2019) in the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System (data from 2 national health insurers and 4 regional integrated health systems). Exposures: COVID-19 or influenza (identified by hospital diagnosis or nucleic acid test). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital diagnosis of arterial thromboembolism (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days. Outcomes were ascertained through July 2019 for patients with influenza and through August 2021 for patients with COVID-19. Propensity scores with fine stratification were developed to account for differences between the influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes during each COVID-19 vaccine availability period vs the influenza period. Results: A total of 85 637 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.0] years; 50.5% were male) and 8269 with influenza (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.3] years; 45.0% were male) were included. The 90-day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism was 14.4% (95% CI, 13.6%-15.2%) in patients with influenza vs 15.8% (95% CI, 15.5%-16.2%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%]) and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.0%-16.6%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of arterial thromboembolism was not significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). The 90-day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.8%) in patients with influenza vs 9.5% (95% CI, 9.2%-9.7%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.6%-4.7%]) and 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-6.1%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of venous thromboembolism was significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.43-1.79]) and during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.68-2.12]). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on data from a US public health surveillance system, hospitalization with COVID-19 before and during vaccine availability, vs hospitalization with influenza in 2018-2019, was significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days, but there was no significant difference in the risk of arterial thromboembolism within 90 days.

Association of mRNA Vaccination With Clinical and Virologic Features of COVID-19 Among US Essential and Frontline Workers.

Importance: Data on the epidemiology of mild to moderately severe COVID-19 are needed to inform public health guidance. Objective: To evaluate associations between 2 or 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and attenuation of symptoms and viral RNA load across SARS-CoV-2 viral lineages. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study of essential and frontline workers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with COVID-19 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing and lineage classified by whole genome sequencing of specimens self-collected weekly and at COVID-19 illness symptom onset. This analysis was conducted among 1199 participants with SARS-CoV-2 from December 14, 2020, to April 19, 2022, with follow-up until May 9, 2022, reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 lineage (origin strain, Delta variant, Omicron variant) and COVID-19 vaccination status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes included presence of symptoms, specific symptoms (including fever or chills), illness duration, and medical care seeking. Virologic outcomes included viral load by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing along with viral viability. Results: Among 1199 participants with COVID-19 infection (714 [59.5%] women; median age, 41 years), 14.0% were infected with the origin strain, 24.0% with the Delta variant, and 62.0% with the Omicron variant. Participants vaccinated with the second vaccine dose 14 to 149 days before Delta infection were significantly less likely to be symptomatic compared with unvaccinated participants (21/27 [77.8%] vs 74/77 [96.1%]; OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0-0.6]) and, when symptomatic, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (5/13 [38.5%] vs 62/73 [84.9%]; OR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3]) and reported significantly fewer days of symptoms (10.2 vs 16.4; difference, -6.1 [95% CI, -11.8 to -0.4] days). Among those with Omicron infection, the risk of symptomatic infection did not differ significantly for the 2-dose vaccination status vs unvaccinated status and was significantly higher for the 3-dose recipients vs those who were unvaccinated (327/370 [88.4%] vs 85/107 [79.4%]; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]). Among symptomatic Omicron infections, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection compared with those who were unvaccinated were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (160/311 [51.5%] vs 64/81 [79.0%]; OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.1-0.5]) or seek medical care (45/308 [14.6%] vs 20/81 [24.7%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). Participants with Delta and Omicron infections who received the second dose 14 to 149 days before infection had a significantly lower mean viral load compared with unvaccinated participants (3 vs 4.1 log10 copies/µL; difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.2] for Delta and 2.8 vs 3.5 log10 copies/µL, difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3] for Omicron). Conclusions and Relevance: In a cohort of US essential and frontline workers with SARS-CoV-2 infections, recent vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses less than 150 days before infection with Delta or Omicron variants, compared with being unvaccinated, was associated with attenuated symptoms, duration of illness, medical care seeking, or viral load for some comparisons, although the precision and statistical significance of specific estimates varied.

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers - Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020-March 2021.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.† Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.§ In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

Physician adjudication of angioedema diagnosis codes in a population of patients with heart failure prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the ICD-9 diagnosis code for angioedema when physicians adjudicate the events by electronic health record review. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of physician adjudication. METHODS: Patients from the Cardiovascular Research Network previously diagnosed with heart failure who were started on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) during the study period (July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2015) were included. A team of two physicians per participating site adjudicated possible events using electronic health records for all patients coded for angioedema for a total of five sites. The PPV was calculated as the number of physician-adjudicated cases divided by all cases with the diagnosis code of angioedema (ICD-9-CM code 995.1) meeting the inclusion criteria. The inter-rater reliability of physician teams, or kappa statistic, was also calculated. RESULTS: There were 38 061 adults with heart failure initiating ACEI in the study (21 489 patient-years). Of 114 coded events that were adjudicated by physicians, 98 angioedema events were confirmed for a PPV of 86% (95% CI: 80%, 92%). The kappa statistic based on physician inter-rater reliability was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: ICD-9 diagnosis code of 995.1 (angioneurotic edema, not elsewhere classified) is highly predictive of angioedema in adults with heart failure exposed to ACEI.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.

Factors associated with opioid-tapering success: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid tapering is recommended when risks of chronic opioid use outweigh benefits. Little is known about patient characteristics or factors related to tapering success. We sought to identify characteristics that predict a 50% reduction in opioid use and qualitatively characterize factors that impact tapering success. METHODS: We used multilevel hierarchical modeling to identify predictors of a 50% reduction in opioid use among Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who underwent pharmacist-led tapering between 2012 and 2017. We conducted qualitative interviews among patients and pharmacists to identify factors influencing tapering success. RESULTS: We identified 1384 patients who, on average, were dispensed 207 milligram morphine equivalents per day at baseline. After 12 months, 56% of patients reduced their opioid use by 50%. Increased odds of 50% reduction were associated with younger age 21-49 years (Odds ratio [OR] 1.32, P = 0.004); previous surgery (OR 2.24, P < 0.001); increased number of Addiction Medicine encounters (OR 1.25, P = 0.011); substance use disorder (OR 1.62, P = 0.001); anxiety (OR 1.32, P = 0.003); non-narcotic analgesic (OR 1.22, P = 0.025) or antipsychotic medication use (OR 1.53, P = 0.006); and opioid days supplied in the previous year (OR 1.08, P < 0.001). Patients and pharmacists noted that success was influenced by patients' willingness or resistance to change opioid use, the level of patient engagement achieved through communication with their provider, aspects of the tapering process such as pace, and external factors including health issues or caregiving responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-half of patients who underwent tapering reduced their opioid use by 50%. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were predictive of tapering success; however, patients and pharmacists noted that patient willingness, motivation, and personal circumstances also influence tapering outcome. Opioid tapering requires an individualized approach. Both clinical factors and personal circumstances should be considered when opioid tapering is being discussed as a possible solution for a patient.

The Health and economic effects of light rail lines: design, methods, and protocol for a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: The health impacts of community design have been studied extensively over the past two decades. In particular, public transportation use is associated with more walking between transit stops and shops, work, home and other destinations. Change in transit access has been linked with physical activity and obesity but seldom to health outcomes and associated costs, especially within a causal framework. Health related fiscal impacts of transit investment should be a key consideration in major transit investment decisions. METHODS: The Rails & Health study is a natural experiment evaluating changes in clinical measures, health care utilization and health care costs among Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) members following the opening of a new light rail transit (LRT) line in Portland, Oregon. The study is prospectively following 3036 adults exposed to the new LRT line and a similar cohort of 4386 adults who do not live close to the new line. Individual-level outcomes and covariates are extracted from the electronic medical record at KPNW, including member demographics and comorbidities, blood pressure, body mass index, lipids, glycosylated hemoglobin, and health care utilization and costs. In addition, participants are surveyed about additional demographics, travel patterns, physical activity (PA), and perceived neighborhood walkability. In a subsample of the study population, we are collecting direct measures of travel-related behavior-physical activity (accelerometry), global positioning system (GPS) tracking, and travel diaries-to document mechanisms responsible for observed changes in health outcomes and cost. Comprehensive measures of the built environment at baseline and after rail construction are also collected. Statistical analyses will (1) examine the effects of opening a new LRT line on chronic disease indicators, health care utilization, and health care costs and (2) evaluate the degree to which observed effects of the LRT line on health measures and costs are mediated by changes in total and transportation-associated PA. DISCUSSION: The results of the Rails & Health study will provide urban planners, transportation engineers, health practitioners, developers, and decision makers with critical information needed to document how transit investments impact population health and related costs.

Evaluation of the US Food and Drug Administration sentinel analysis tools in confirming previously observed drug-outcome associations: The case of clindamycin and Clostridium difficile infection.

PURPOSE: The Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System developed parameterized, reusable analytic programs for evaluation of medical product safety. Research on outpatient antibiotic exposures, and Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) with non-user reference groups led us to expect a higher rate of CDI among outpatient clindamycin users vs penicillin users. We evaluated the ability of the Cohort Identification and Descriptive Analysis and Propensity Score Matching tools to identify a higher rate of CDI among clindamycin users. METHODS: We matched new users of outpatient dispensings of oral clindamycin or penicillin from 13 Data Partners 1:1 on propensity score and followed them for up to 60 days for development of CDI. We used Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by Data Partner and matched pair to compare CDI incidence. RESULTS: Propensity score models at 3 Data Partners had convergence warnings and a limited range of predicted values. We excluded these Data Partners despite adequate covariate balance after matching. From the 10 Data Partners where these models converged without warnings, we identified 807 919 new clindamycin users and 8 815 441 new penicillin users eligible for the analysis. The stratified analysis of 807 769 matched pairs included 840 events among clindamycin users and 290 among penicillin users (hazard ratio 2.90, 95% confidence interval 2.53, 3.31). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation produced an expected result and identified several potential enhancements to the Propensity Score Matching tool. This study has important limitations. CDI risk may have been related to factors other than the inherent properties of the drugs, such as duration of use or subsequent exposures.

Recommendations for Providers on Person-Centered Approaches to Assess and Improve Medication Adherence.

Medication non-adherence is a significant clinical challenge that adversely affects psychosocial factors, costs, and outcomes that are shared by patients, family members, providers, healthcare systems, payers, and society. Patient-centered care (i.e., involving patients and their families in planning their health care) is increasingly emphasized as a promising approach for improving medication adherence, but clinician education around what this might look like in a busy primary care environment is lacking. We use a case study to demonstrate key skills such as motivational interviewing, counseling, and shared decision-making for clinicians interested in providing patient-centered care in efforts to improve medication adherence. Such patient-centered approaches hold considerable promise for addressing the high rates of non-adherence to medications for chronic conditions.

Trimethoprim-sulfonamide use during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of congenital anomalies.

BACKGROUND: Sulfonamide antibacterials are widely used in pregnancy, but evidence about their safety is mixed. The objective of this study was to assess the association between first-trimester sulfonamide exposure and risk of specific congenital malformations. METHODS: Mother-infant pairs were selected from a cohort of 1.2 million live-born deliveries (2001-2008) at 11 US health plans comprising the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program. Mothers with first-trimester trimethoprim-sulfonamide (TMP-SUL) exposures were randomly matched 1:1 to (i) a primary comparison group (mothers exposed to penicillins and/or cephalosporins) and (ii) a secondary comparison group (mothers with no dispensing of an antibacterial, antiprotozoal, or antimalarial medication during the same time period). The outcomes were cardiovascular abnormalities, cleft palate/lip, clubfoot, and urinary tract abnormalities. RESULTS: We first identified 7615 infants in the TMP-SUL exposure group, of which 7595 (99%) were exposed to a combination of TMP-SUL and the remaining 1% to sulfonamides alone. After matching (1:1) to the comparator groups and only including those with complete data on covariates, there were 20 064 (n = 6688 per group) in the primary analyses. Overall, cardiovascular defects (1.52%) were the most common and cleft lip/palate (0.10%) the least common that were evaluated. Compared with penicillin/cephalosporin exposure, and no antibacterial exposure, TMP-SUL exposure was not associated with statistically significant elevated risks for cardiovascular, cleft lip/palate, clubfoot, or urinary system defects. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester TMP-SUL exposure was not associated with a higher risk of the congenital anomalies studied, compared with exposure to penicillins and/or cephalosporins, or no exposure to antibacterials.

The importance of considering different healthcare settings when estimating the burden of Clostridium difficile.

BACKGROUND: Traditional surveillance methods may underestimate the true burden of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) because they fail to capture cases brought to medical attention in outpatient settings or diagnosed during non-face-to-face patient-provider interactions. METHODS: We identified CDIs diagnosed among Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients between 1 June 2005 and 30 December 2012. We categorized infections by whether they were diagnosed during an inpatient or outpatient encounter and whether they were diagnosed during a face-to-face (eg, hospitalization, outpatient visit) or non-face-to-face encounter (eg, phone, e-mail). We constructed a baseline surveillance estimate that included CDIs identified during hospitalization, representing burden captured through traditional surveillance approaches. We then constructed 2 additional estimates: 1 that included CDIs identified during outpatient face-to-face encounters and 1 that also included CDIs identified during non-face-to-face encounters. RESULTS: We identified 8024 CDIs. Twenty-four percent occurred during a hospitalization, while the remaining CDIs were recognized in the outpatient setting. Surveillance focused on hospitalized patients would have captured less than one-quarter of total burden. The addition of cases identified during outpatient face-to-face encounters would account for 80% of CDIs. An additional 1702 CDIs would not be captured without inclusion of non-face-to-face encounters; thus, surveillance approaches that do not include telephone or e-mail encounters would miss 21% of CDIs. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance approaches that do not include outpatient or nontraditional encounters miss a substantial proportion of CDIs. Failure to capture these cases leads to underestimation of disease burden and difficulty in measuring interventions to control CDI.