RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that requires frequent clinic and laboratory visits. However, patients with SLE, particularly those that are under-resourced, have unacceptably high rates of no-shows. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine no-show rates associated with telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to no show rates associated with contemporaneous and historic in-person. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in a publicly funded county hospital system in Houston, Texas. We identified a cohort of established SLE patients by International Classification of Diagnosis (ICD) codes that were independently confirmed as SLE by review of medical records. We identified patients who were seen from March to December in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (to reflect the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and account for seasonal changes in disease activity). Our primary outcome was percentage of no-shows for rheumatology clinic appointments. Our secondary outcome was laboratory utilization adherence, which was defined as lupus-specific blood and urine studies conducted within 30 days of the scheduled appointment. Covariates included age, gender, race, ethnicity, and SLE-related prescription drugs. RESULTS: We included 156 SLE patients in our analysis. Most were female (90.4%), Hispanic (49.3%) and had a median age of 43. In 2020, the no-show rate for telemedicine was 5.5% compared to a no-show rate of 16.2% for in-person visits (p=0.002). After multivariable adjustment for covariates, the odds of no-show was lower for telemedicine visits (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.77). There were no differences in adherence to laboratory testing. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine visits had decreased odds of no-shows without difference in laboratory testing adherence after adjustment for covariates. More research is needed to determine the clinical impact of telemedicine on patients with SLE.
RESUMO
Background: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is a novel diagnostic tool increasingly used in the field of infectious diseases. Little guidance is available regarding its appropriate use in different patient populations and clinical syndromes. We aimed to review the clinical utility of mNGS in patients with a specific clinical syndrome and identify factors that may increase its utility. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts of 72 non-immunocompromised adults hospitalized with the clinical syndrome of 'fever of undetermined origin' and underwent mNGS testing. Standardized criteria from a previously published study were used to determine the clinical impact of mNGS testing. We applied logistic regression to identify factors associated with a positive clinical impact. Results: Of the 72 patients identified, 62.5% were males with a median age of 56. All patients had a fever at the time of evaluation. At least one organism was identified in 65.3% of cases; most commonly were Epstein-Barr virus (13.9%), cytomegalovirus (12.5%), and Rickettsia typhi (11.1%). Of those determined to have an infectious etiology of their febrile syndrome, 89.5% (n = 34/38) had a positive mNGS. Consistency between the organism(s) on mNGS and the clinically determined infectious etiology was 82.4%. mNGS had a positive clinical impact in 40.3% of cases, a negative impact in 2.8%, and no impact in 56.9% of cases. Besides age, we did not identify other factors associated with a higher likelihood of positive clinical impact. Conclusion: In our review, mNGS had a positive clinical impact in a large proportion of adults with fever of undetermined origin, with minimal negative impact. However, mNGS results should be interpreted carefully given the high rate of detection of pathogens of unclear clinical significance. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the clinical utility of this novel diagnostic tool.
Clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in fever of undetermined origin In this study, we evaluated the use of a new diagnostic tool, namely, metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS), in hospitalized, non-immunocompromised, adult patients with a fever that was otherwise unexplained. We reviewed the clinical utility of this tool in 72 patients and found that at least one organism was found in 65.3% of cases, with the 2 most common organisms being viruses. In patients who were found to have an infection as the cause of their fever, 89.5% had a positive mNGS study. In 82.4% of cases, the infectious organism(s) found on mNGS was the organism thought to be the cause of the fever. Based on definitions from another study, mNGS had a positive clinical impact in 40.3% of cases, a negative impact in 2.8%, and no impact in 56.9% of cases. This study suggests that mNGS has minimal negative impact and can be a useful tool in identifying a causative infectious organism in patients with unexplained fevers. Additional studies are needed to identify patients and clinical conditions that would most benefit from this tool.