ABSTRACT
Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate pituitary tumor patient satisfaction with telemedicine, patient preference for telemedicine, potential socioeconomic benefit of telemedicine, and patients' willingness to proceed with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Method In total, 134 patients who had pituitary surgery and a telemedicine visit during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (April 23, 2020–March 4, 2021) were called to participate in a 13-part questionnaire. Chi-square, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to determine significance. Result Of 134 patients contacted, 90 responded (67%). Ninety-five percent were "satisfied” or "very satisfied” with their telemedicine visit, with 62% stating their visit was "the same” or "better” than previous in-person appointments. Eighty-two percent of the patients rated their telemedicine visit as "easy” or "very easy.” On average, patients saved 150 minutes by using telemedicine compared with patient reported in-person visit times. Seventy-seven percent of patients reported the need to take off from work for in-person visits, compared with just 12% when using telemedicine. Forty-nine percent of patients preferred in-person visits, 34% preferred telemedicine, and 17% had no preference. Fifty percent of patients said they would feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Patients with both initial evaluation and follow-up conducted via telemedicine were more likely to feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone compared with patients who had only follow-up telemedicine visits ( p = 0.051). Conclusion Many patients are satisfied with telemedicine visits and feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Telemedicine is an important adjunct to increase access to care at a Pituitary Center of Excellence.
ABSTRACT
Knowledge of the immunogenicity of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in liver transplant recipients (LTRs) is mainly limited to messenger RNA (mRNA)-based types. We aimed to evaluate the humoral response in LTRs and to address the use of different doses of mycophenolate (MMF) on the probability of developing anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG). In this prospective cohort study, SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG, neutralizing antibodies (NAs), and nucleocapsid protein (N) were evaluated in LTRs and healthy volunteers 21-90 days after receiving the second vaccine dose of either ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), rAd26-rAd5 (Sputnik V), inactivated BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), or the heterologous combination rAd26/mRNA-1273 (Sputnik V/Moderna). We collected information regarding clinical data and vaccine side effects. After excluding three LTRs due to a positive N test, 120 LTRs and 27 controls were analyzed. No significant differences were found among groups. Overall, 24 (89%) controls and 74 (62%) LTRs were positive for anti-spike IgG (p = 0.007). Among LTRs, those immunized with rAd26/mRNA-1273 presented significantly higher positive serology and NAs when compared with the homologous regimens (91% vs. 55%, p = 0.001; and 1182 IU/ml vs. 446 IU/ml, p = 0.002; respectively). In the multivariate analysis, humoral response was significantly reduced in LTRs who received higher doses of MMF (odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.3; p < 0.001) and with increased BMI (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; p = 0.005); and it was significantly higher in those immunized with rAd26/mRNA-1273 (OR, 13.1; 95% CI, 2.3-72.9; p = 0.003). In LTRs anti-spike IgG concentrations showed a very good correlation with NA titers (R2 = 0.949; 95% CI, 0.919-0.967; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. Conclusion: In LTRs, rAd26/mRNA-1273 was independently associated with higher antibody response. Future studies are necessary to evaluate whether combining different vaccine platforms and MMF reduction may lead to a better booster response.