Oral famotidine versus placebo in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, data-intense, phase 2 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether famotidine improved inflammation and symptomatic recovery in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully remote, phase 2 clinical trial (NCT04724720) enrolling symptomatic unvaccinated adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 between January 2021 and April 2021 from two US centres. Patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine (n=28) or placebo (n=27) orally three times a day for 14 consecutive days. Endpoints were time to (primary) or rate of (secondary) symptom resolution, and resolution of inflammation (exploratory). RESULTS: Of 55 patients in the intention-to-treat group (median age 35 years (IQR: 20); 35 women (64%); 18 African American (33%); 14 Hispanic (26%)), 52 (95%) completed the trial, submitting 1358 electronic symptom surveys. Time to symptom resolution was not statistically improved (p=0.4). Rate of symptom resolution was improved for patients taking famotidine (p<0.0001). Estimated 50% reduction of overall baseline symptom scores were achieved at 8.2 days (95% CI: 7 to 9.8 days) for famotidine and 11.4 days (95% CI: 10.3 to 12.6 days) for placebo treated patients. Differences were independent of patient sex, race or ethnicity. Five self-limiting adverse events occurred (famotidine, n=2 (40%); placebo, n=3 (60%)). On day 7, fewer patients on famotidine had detectable interferon alpha plasma levels (p=0.04). Plasma immunoglobulin type G levels to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid core protein were similar between both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Famotidine was safe and well tolerated in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Famotidine led to earlier resolution of symptoms and inflammation without reducing anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity. Additional randomised trials are required.

Examination of Post-discharge Follow-up Appointment Status and 30-Day Readmission.

BACKGROUND: Post-hospital discharge follow-up appointments are intended to evaluate patients' recovery following a hospitalization, but it is unclear how appointment statuses are associated with readmissions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between post-discharge ambulatory follow-up status, (1) having a scheduled appointment and (2) arriving to said appointment, and 30-day readmission. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized at 12 hospitals in an Integrated Delivery Network and their ambulatory appointments in that same network. PATIENTS AND MAIN MEASURES: We included 50,772 patients who had an ambulatory appointment within 18 months of an inpatient admission in 2018. Primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge. KEY RESULTS: There were 32,108 (63.2%) patients with scheduled follow-up appointments and 18,664 (36.8%) patients with no follow-up; 28,313 (88.2%) patients arrived, 3149 (9.8%) missed, and 646 (2.0%) were readmitted prior to their scheduled appointments. Overall 30-day readmission rate was 7.3%; 6.0% [5.75-6.31] for those who arrived, 8.8% [8.44-9.25] for those without follow-up, and 10.3% [9.28-11.40] for those who missed a scheduled appointment (p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, patients who arrived at their appointment in the first week following discharge were significantly less likely to be readmitted than those not having any follow-up scheduled (medical adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.57 [0.47-0.69], p < 0.001; surgical aHR 0.58 [0.44-0.75], p < 0.001) There was an increased risk at weeks 3 and 4 for medical patients who arrived at a follow-up compared to those with no follow-up scheduled (week 3 aHR 1.29 [1.10-1.51], p = 0.001; week 4 aHR 1.46 [1.26-1.70], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of patients arriving to their post-discharge appointments compared with patients who missed their follow-up visits or had no follow-up scheduled, is only significant during first week post-discharge, suggesting that coordination within 1 week of discharge is critical in reducing 30-day readmissions.

Examination of resident characteristics associated with interest in primary care and identification of barriers to cross-cultural care.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing shortage of primary care physicians in the U.S. The difficult task of addressing patients' sociocultural needs is one reason residents do not pursue primary care. However, associations between residents' perceived barriers to cross-cultural care provision and career interest in primary care have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: We examined residents' career interest in primary care and associations with resident characteristics and their perceived barriers in providing cross-cultural care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a resident survey from the 2018-2019 academic year. We first described residents' sociodemographic characteristics based on their career interest in primary care (Chi-square test). Our primary outcome was high career interest in primary care. We further examined associations between residents' characteristics and perceived barriers to cross-cultural care. RESULTS: The study included 155 family medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine residents (response rate 68.2%), with 17 expressing high career interest in primary care. There were significant differences in high career interest by race/ethnicity, as Non-White race was associated with high career interest in primary care (p < 0.01). Resident characteristics associated with identifying multiple barriers to cross-cultural care included disadvantaged background, multilingualism, and foreign-born parents (all p-values< 0.05). There were no significant associations between high career interest in primary care and barriers to cross-cultural care. CONCLUSION: Residents from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds demonstrated higher career interest in primary care and perceived more barriers to cross-cultural care, underscoring the importance of increasing physician workforce diversity to address the primary care shortage and to improve cross-cultural care.

A novel longitudinal interprofessional ambulatory training practice: the improving patient access care and cost through training (IMPACcT) clinic.

Few graduating health professionals choose primary care. Trainees satisfied with continuity ambulatory experiences are more likely to pursue primary care. The authors developed a longitudinal interprofessional ambulatory training program to improve team-based care and encourage primary care careers. The Improving Patient Access Care and cost through Training (IMPACcT) clinic, launched in 2016, includes physician, physician assistant, pharmacy, and psychology trainees. Residents, faculty, and interprofessional trainees complete "on-service" weeks together. Co-located administrative team members coordinate care and lead team "huddles." Interprofessional signout facilitates patient follow-up. The initial evaluation included process and quality indicators compared to the traditional resident practice. Learners reported increased perceived competence in interprofessional communication and teamwork after completing their training. Clinical quality outcomes suggested improved provider continuity and arrival rate compared to traditional resident practice (56.5% vs. 32.9%; 66.3% vs. 62.2%, p < .01). Patient satisfaction was higher in the IMPACcT clinic in the areas of coordinated care and team functioning. Ten of eighteen physician graduates in the program chose further training in primary care compared to 20 of 150 graduates not in the program (55.6% vs. 13.3%, p < .01). Implementing a longitudinal team-based ambulatory interprofessional training practice was associated with improved continuity of care and improved patient satisfaction indicators.

Famotidine use and quantitative symptom tracking for COVID-19 in non-hospitalised patients: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce morbidity, mortality and spread of the disease are an urgent global need. The over-the-counter histamine-2 receptor antagonist famotidine is a putative therapy for COVID-19. We quantitively assessed longitudinal changes in patient reported outcome measures in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose famotidine orally. DESIGN: Patients were enrolled consecutively after signing written informed consent. Data on demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, famotidine use, drug-related side effects, temperature measurements, oxygen saturations and symptom scores were obtained using questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on a National Institute of Health (NIH)-endorsed Protocol to research Patient Experience of COVID-19, we collected longitudinal severity scores of five symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches and anosmia) and general unwellness on a four-point ordinal scale modelled on performance status scoring. All data are reported at the patient level. Longitudinal combined normalised symptom scores were statistically compared. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose oral famotidine were identified. The most frequently used famotidine regimen was 80 mg three times daily (n=6) for a median of 11 days (range: 5-21 days). Famotidine was well tolerated. All patients reported marked improvements of disease related symptoms after starting famotidine. The combined symptom score improved significantly within 24 hours of starting famotidine and peripheral oxygen saturation (n=2) and device recorded activity (n=1) increased. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this case series suggest that high-dose oral famotidine is well tolerated and associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Disparities in complementary alternative medicine use and asthma exacerbation in the United States.

Background: Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are associated with poor asthma medication adherence, a major risk factor for asthma exacerbation. However, previous studies showed inconsistent relationships between CAM use and asthma control due to small sample sizes, demographic differences across populations studied, and poor differentiation of CAM types.Methods: We examined associations between CAM use and asthma exacerbation using a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. We included adults ≥18 years with current asthma (n = 2,736) to analyze racial/ethnic differences in CAM use as well as the association between CAM use and both asthma exacerbation and emergency department (ED) visit for asthma exacerbation across racial/ethnic groups. We ran descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions.Result: Blacks (OR = 0.63 [0.49-0.81]) and Hispanics (OR = 0.66 [0.48-0.92]) had decreased odds of using CAM compared to Whites. Overall, there was no association between CAM use and asthma exacerbation (OR = 0.99 [0.79-1.25]) but the subgroup of 'other complementary approaches' was associated with increased odds of asthma exacerbation among all survey respondents (1.90 [1.21-2.97]), Whites (OR = 1.90 [1.21-2.97]), and Hispanics (OR = 1.43 [0.98-2.09). CAM use was associated with decreased odds of an ED visit for asthma exacerbation (OR = 0.65 [0.45-0.93]). These associations were different among racial/ethnic groups with decreased odds of ED visit among Whites (OR = 0.50 [0.32-0.78]) but no association among Blacks and Hispanics.Conclusion: We found that both CAM use and the association between CAM use and asthma exacerbation varied by racial/ethnic group. The different relationship may arise from how CAM is used to complement or to substitute for conventional asthma management.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Diagnosis of Chronic Medical Conditions in the USA.

BACKGROUND: There exist racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence of chronic medical illnesses. However, it is unclear if the disparities arise from patients' self-reported estimates on these diseases and whether there is an association between healthcare utilization and diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To estimate national racial/ethnic prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, and kidney disease and identify characteristics associated with undiagnosed diseases. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of multi-year survey data. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 18 years and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2011-2014 (n = 10,403). MAIN OUTCOMES: Undiagnosed hypertension (SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥ 90 on physical examination with no history of hypertension), undiagnosed diabetes (hgba1c ≥ 6.5% with no history of diabetes), undiagnosed high cholesterol (LDL ≥ 160 mg/dL with no history of high cholesterol), and undiagnosed kidney disease (eGFR ≤ 30 with no history of kidney disease). RESULTS: The study sample was categorized into Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Other. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, Asians had increased odds of undiagnosed hypertension (OR = 1.41 [1.06-1.86]) and diabetes (OR = 6.16 [3.76-10.08]) compared to Whites. Blacks (OR = 2.53 [1.71-3.73]) and Hispanics (OR = 1.88 [1.19-2.99]) had increased odds of undiagnosed diabetes compared to Whites. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that not having any health insurance was associated with increased odds of undiagnosed diabetes and hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.56 [1.00-2.44] and OR = 2.08 [1.44-3.00], respectively). A recent healthcare visit was associated with a lower likelihood of having undiagnosed hypertension (OR = 0.58 [0.41-0.83]) and diabetes (OR = 0.35 [0.18-0.69]). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationally representative cohort, Asians had higher rates of undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes, and all minorities were more likely to have undiagnosed diabetes compared to Whites. Healthcare utilization was associated with undiagnosed medical conditions. Our study showed that reliance on self-reported data may systemically underestimate the prevalence of chronic illnesses among minorities and further research is needed to understand the significance of healthcare utilization in health outcomes.

Relationship between alcohol use categories and noninvasive markers of advanced hepatic fibrosis in HIV-infected, chronic hepatitis C virus-infected, and uninfected patients.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the risk of liver disease associated with different levels of alcohol consumption is higher for patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). We evaluated associations between alcohol use categories and advanced hepatic fibrosis, by HIV and chronic HCV status. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among participants in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who reported alcohol consumption at enrollment (701 HIV/HCV-coinfected; 1410 HIV-monoinfected; 296 HCV-monoinfected; 1158 HIV/HCV-uninfected). Alcohol use category was determined by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire and alcohol-related diagnoses and was classified as nonhazardous drinking, hazardous/binge drinking, or alcohol-related diagnosis. Advanced hepatic fibrosis was defined by FIB-4 index >3.25. RESULTS: Within each HIV/HCV group, the prevalence of advanced hepatic fibrosis increased as alcohol use category increased. For each alcohol use category, advanced hepatic fibrosis was more common among HIV-infected than uninfected (nonhazardous: 6.7% vs 1.4%; hazardous/binge: 9.5% vs 3.0%; alcohol-related diagnosis: 19.0% vs 8.6%; P < .01) and chronic HCV-infected than uninfected (nonhazardous: 13.6% vs 2.5%; hazardous/binge: 18.2% vs 3.1%; alcohol-related diagnosis: 22.1% vs 6.5%; P < .01) participants. Strong associations with advanced hepatic fibrosis (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) were observed among HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with nonhazardous drinking (14.2 [5.91-34.0]), hazardous/binge drinking (18.9 [7.98-44.8]), and alcohol-related diagnoses (25.2 [10.6-59.7]) compared with uninfected nonhazardous drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hepatic fibrosis was present at low levels of alcohol consumption, increased with higher alcohol use categories, and was more prevalent among HIV-infected and chronic HCV-infected patients than uninfected individuals. All alcohol use categories were strongly associated with advanced hepatic fibrosis in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients.

Teaching the teachers: faculty preparedness and evaluation of a retreat in screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment.

Effective clinical faculty are essential for disseminating substance abuse screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). The authors developed an 8-hour SBIRT training for internal medicine faculty preceptors. Trainers conducted SBIRT lectures and small-group communication practice sessions. The authors assessed participants' (n = 27) knowledge, skills, and attitudes using an enhanced Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perceptions Questionnaire (AAPPQ). Participants self-assessed their changes in SBIRT competence and comfort. Faculty trainees did not feel competent in SBIRT, particularly in intervention and referral to treatment. AAPPQ subscale scores were highest in Role Legitimacy and Motivation and lowest in Role Adequacy and Satisfaction. After training, faculty members reported greater likelihood of performing and teaching SBIRT. In some topic areas, faculty attending an SBIRT training reported limited knowledge and competence for treating drinkers; however, their interest and motivation for doing so was high. Ongoing faculty and organizational development efforts may help close these gaps.