Time and productivity loss associated with immunotherapy infusions for the treatment of melanoma in the United States: a survey of health care professionals and patients.

INTRODUCTION: A new dosing schedule for the oncology immunotherapy pembrolizumab, every 6 weeks (Q6W), has been approved by the U.S. FDA, reducing the frequency of visits to infusion centers. We quantified the time spent by oncologists, nurses, patients, and caregivers per melanoma-related immunotherapy infusion visit to evaluate its potential impact. METHODS: Surveys were self-completed by 100 oncologists, 101 oncology nurses, and 100 patients with melanoma across the U.S. to quantify the time spent per infusion visit with pembrolizumab (Q3W or Q6W), nivolumab (Q2W or Q4W), or nivolumab+ipilimumab (nivolumab in combination: Q3W; nivolumab maintenance: Q2W or Q4W). Time measures included traveling, waiting, consultation, infusion, post-treatment observation, and caregiving. Respondents were also surveyed regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on infusion treatments. RESULTS: Responses deemed valid were provided by 89 oncologists, 93 nurses, and 100 patients. For each new [returning] patient treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab, oncologists reported to spend an average of 90 [64], 87 [60] and 101 [69] minutes per infusion visit (p-value for between-group difference = 0.300 [0.627]). For first [subsequent] treatment cycles, nurses reported spending 160 [145] average minutes per visit for nivolumab+ipilimumab, versus roughly 120 [110] for the single agents (p-value for between-group difference = 0.018 [0.022]). Patients reported to spend an average of 263, 382, and 224 minutes per visit at the center for pembrolizumab (N = 47), nivolumab (n = 34), and nivolumab+ipilimumab (n = 15) respectively (p-value for between-group difference = 0.0002). Patients also reported that their unpaid (N = 20) and paid caregivers (N = 41) spent with them an average of 966 and 333 minutes, respectively, from the day before to the day after the infusion visit. CONCLUSION: Less frequent immunotherapy infusion visits may result in substantial time savings for oncologists, nurses, patients, and caregivers.

[Validity of an instrument for screening households at risk of food insecurity in different strata of the Brazilian population]. / Validade do instrumento para triagem de domicílios em risco de insegurança alimentar em diversos estratos da população brasileira.

The absence of risk screening tools for food insecurity compromises the ability to assess, monitor, and provide immediate assistance to those in hunger, especially during emergencies such as the COVID-19 crisis. Hence, this study sought to test the validity of an instrument for Screening Households at Risk of Food Insecurity (TRIA) in different strata of the Brazilian population TRIA uses questions 2 and 4 of the Brazilian Food Insecurity Scale (EBIA), originally validated using data from the Brazilian National Survey of Demography and Health of Children and Women (PNDS 2006). In this study, using data from the Brazilian National Household Sample Survey (PNAD 2013), its reproducibility was tested by repeating the original combinatorial procedures, examining whether the parameters of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive values (PPV) and negative values (NPV) would result in the same arrangement of questions. Moreover, convergent validity was analyzed by comparing the strength of association between food insecurity and dietary variables using two binomial regression models (TRIA x EBIA). Results indicated that the combination of questions 2 and 4 performed best among the population strata studied, and presented optimal convergent validity. PPV and NPV adjusted for food insecurity prevalence in states ranged from 42.8% (Santa Catarina) to 87.6% (Amazonas) and 95.8% (Amazonas) to 99.5% (Santa Catarina), respectively. In conclusion, besides being reproducible, TRIA presented excellent validity parameters, especially among vulnerable groups. It can thus be used in care practice and as an instrument of food and nutritional surveillance in Brazil.

A ausência de instrumentos de triagem de risco para insegurança alimentar compromete a capacidade de avaliar, monitorar e ofertar assistência imediata a pessoas em situação de fome, especialmente durante emergências, como a crise da COVID-19. Assim, o objetivo deste estudo foi testar a validade do instrumento de Triagem para Risco de Insegurança Alimentar (TRIA), em diversos estratos da população brasileira. A TRIA é composta pelas questões 2 e 4 da Escala Brasileira de Insegurança Alimentar (EBIA), validada, originalmente, a partir de dados da Pesquisa Nacional de Demografia e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher (PNDS 2006). Neste estudo, utilizando dados da Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD 2013), testou-se sua reprodutibilidade por meio da repetição dos procedimentos combinatórios originais, examinando se os parâmetros de sensibilidade, especificidade, acurácia e valores preditivos positivo (VPP) e negativo (VPN) resultariam no mesmo arranjo de questões. Ainda, analisou-se a validade convergente comparando a força de associação entre insegurança alimentar e variáveis alimentares por meio de dois modelos de regressão binomial (TRIA x EBIA). Os resultados indicaram que a combinação das questões 2 e 4 apresentou melhor desempenho entre os estratos populacionais estudados, além de ótima validade convergente. O VPP e VPN ajustado pela prevalência de insegurança alimentar nos estados variou de 42,8% (Santa Catarina) a 87,6% (Amazonas) e 95,8% (Amazonas) a 99,5% (Santa Catarina), respectivamente. Em conclusão, além de ser reprodutível, a TRIA apresentou excelentes parâmetros de validade, sobretudo em grupos vulnerabilizados. Assim, seu uso pode ser recomendado na prática assistencial e como instrumento de vigilância alimentar e nutricional no Brasil.

La ausencia de instrumentos de triaje de riesgo para la inseguridad alimentaria compromete la capacidad de evaluar, monitorear y brindar asistencia inmediata a las personas en situación de hambre, especialmente durante emergencias como la crisis de la COVID-19. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este estudio fue probar la validez del instrumento de Triaje para Riesgo de Inseguridad Alimentaria (TRIA) en diferentes estratos de la población brasileña. El TRIA consta de las preguntas 2 y 4 de la Escala Brasileña de Inseguridad Alimentaria (EBIA), originalmente validada con base en datos de la Encuesta Nacional de Demografía y Salud de la Mujer y el Niño (PNDS 2006). En este estudio, utilizando datos de la Encuesta Nacional por Muestra de Domicilios (PNAD 2013), se probó su reproducibilidad repitiendo los procedimientos combinatorios originales, examinando si los parámetros de sensibilidad, especificidad, exactitud y valores predictivos positivos (VPP) y negativo (VPN) resultarían en el mismo arreglo de preguntas. Además, se analizó la validez convergente comparando la fuerza de asociación entre la inseguridad alimentaria y las variables alimentarias por medio de dos modelos de regresión binomial (TRIA x EBIA). Los resultados indicaron que la combinación de las preguntas 2 y 4 presentó el mejor desempeño entre los estratos poblacionales estudiados, además de excelente validez convergente. El VPP y el VPN ajustado por la prevalencia de inseguridad alimentaria en los estados osciló entre el 42,8% (Santa Catarina) y el 87,6% (Amazonas) y entre el 95,8% (Amazonas) y el 99,5% (Santa Catarina), respectivamente. En conclusión, además de ser reproducible, el TRIA presentó excelentes parámetros de validez, especialmente en grupos en situación de vulnerabilidad. Por lo tanto, se puede recomendar su uso en la práctica asistencial y como instrumento para la vigilancia alimentaria y nutricional en Brasil.

A Quantitative and Qualitative Literature Analysis of the Orthopedic Surgeons' Experience: Reflecting on 20 Years in the Global War on Terror.

INTRODUCTION: After over 20 years of war in the Middle East, orthopedic injuries have been among the most prevalent combat-related injuries, accounting for 14% of all surgical procedures at Role 2/3 (R2/R3) facilities according to the DoD Trauma Registry. To further delineate the role of the deployed orthopedic surgeon on the modern battlefield, a retrospective review was performed highlighting both quantitative and qualitative analysis factors associated with orthopedic surgical care during the war in the Middle East. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of orthopedic surgeons in the Middle East from 2001 to 2021. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases using a two-reviewer strategy. Articles were compiled and reviewed using Covidence. Inclusion criteria included journal articles focusing on orthopedic injuries sustained during the Global War on Terror (GWoT) in an adult U.S. Military population. In the event of a conflict, a third author would determine the relevance of the article. For the remaining articles, a full-text review was conducted to extract relevant predetermined quantitative data, and the Delphi consensus method was then utilized to highlight relevant qualitative themes. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1,226 potentially relevant articles. In all, 40 studies ultimately met the eligibility criteria. With the consultation of previously deployed orthopedic surgeons at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a retrospective thematic analysis of the 40 studies revealed five themes encompassing the orthopedic surgeons experience throughout GWoT. These themes include unique mechanisms of orthopedic injury compared to previous war injuries due to novel weaponry, differences in interventions depending on R2 versus R3 locations, differences in injuries from those seen in civilian settings, the maintained emphasis on humanitarian aspect of an orthopedic surgeon's mission, and lastly relation of pre-deployment training to perceived deployed success of the orthopedic surgeons. From this extensive review, we found that explosive mechanisms of injury were greatly increased when compared to previous conflicts and were the etiology for the majority of orthopedic injuries sustained. With the increase of complex explosive injuries in the setting of improved body armor and overall survival, R2/3 facilities showed an increased demand for orthopedic intervention including debridement, amputations, and external fixation. Combat injuries sustained during the GWoT differ in the complications, management, and complexity when compared to civilian trauma. "Humanitarian" cases made up a significant number of operative cases for the deployed orthopedic surgeon. Lastly, heterogeneous training opportunities were available prior to deployment (fellowship, combat extremity surgical courses, and dedicated pre-deployment training), and the most commonly identified useful training was learning additional soft-tissue coverage techniques. CONCLUSION: These major themes indicate an emphasis on pre-deployment training and the strategic positioning of orthopedic surgeons to reflect the changing landscape of musculoskeletal trauma care. Moving forward, these authors recommend analyzing the comfort and perceived capability of orthopedic surgeons in these unique military environments to best prepare for a changing operational format and the possibility of future peer-peer conflicts that will likely lead to a lack of medical evacuation and prolonged field care.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

SARS/CoV-2: Behavioral Host Manipulation.

INTRODUCTION: Though it has not been extensively studied, host manipulation has been documented for various pathogens. Examples of this phenomenon can be seen in cases of toxoplasmosis, rabies, and the influenza virus. An examination of the possible means by which SARS/CoV-2 alters the behavior of its host to spread among populations is elaborated. Indirect evidence that serves as indicators of this phenomenon is presented. METHODS: This is primarily a theoretical document. Many of the ideas raised are not amenable to direct testing due to ethical concerns. However, several indirect means by which to test the hypothesis are discussed. Primary data from cell phones regarding miles traveled, number of times leaving home, etc., are among the possible indirect measures. RESULTS: The rapid ability of the SARS/CoV-2 virus to spread through society suggests that it may cause behavioral changes of the host to increase its transmission. Numerous cases of super spreader events are noted that have provided meaningful measures of host manipulation. CONCLUSION: In the case of SARS/CoV-2, the largest advantage of the pathogen is likely that between 50% and 70% of those infected are asymptomatic (John's Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, John's Hopkins University Corona Virus Resource Center. Available at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html , 2020). This component is a threat to elderly individuals and those immunocompromised who are more likely to have severe complications from the virus and die. To spread within these groups, a seemingly healthy host is necessary to carry the virus to them. The goal of the virus is not to kill the host, but to survive and reproduce.

Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories

Although there has been unprecedented attention to inoculation theory in recent years, the potential of this research has yet to be reached. Inoculation theory explains how immunity to counter‐attitudinal messages is conferred by preemptively exposing people to weakened doses of challenging information. The theory has been applied in a number of contexts (e.g., politics, health) in its 50+ year history. Importantly, one of the newest contexts for inoculation theory is work in the area of contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Recent research has revealed that when a desirable position on a scientific issue (e.g., climate change) exists, conventional preemptive (prophylactic) inoculation can help to protect it from misinformation, and that even when people have undesirable positions, “therapeutic” inoculation messages can have positive effects. We call for further research to explain and predict the efficacy of inoculation theory in this new context to help inform better public understandings of issues such as climate change, genetically modified organisms, vaccine hesitancy, and other contested science beliefs such as conspiracy theories about COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social & Personality Psychology Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How to Spot COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories

From the Document: The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic is a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories. When people suffer a loss of control or feel threatened, they become more vulnerable to believing conspiracies. For example, the Black Death in the 14th century inspired anti-Semitic hysteria and when cholera broke out in Russia in 1892, blame fell on doctors and crowds hunted down anybody in a white coat. How do we avoid being misled by baseless conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories are identified by telltale thought patterns. Learning these patterns is key to inoculating ourselves and society against the corrosive influence of conspiracy theories.Disinformation;Fake news;COVID-19 (Disease)

Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support.

The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably dominated public discourse, crowding out other important issues such as climate change. Currently, if climate change enters the arena of public debate, it primarily does so in direct relation to the pandemic. In two experiments, we investigated (1) whether portraying the response to the COVID-19 threat as a "trial run" for future climate action would increase climate-change concern and mitigation support, and (2) whether portraying climate change as a concern that needs to take a "back seat" while focus lies on economic recovery would decrease climate-change concern and mitigation support. We found no support for the effectiveness of a trial-run frame in either experiment. In Experiment 1, we found that a back-seat frame reduced participants' support for mitigative action. In Experiment 2, the back-seat framing reduced both climate-change concern and mitigation support; a combined inoculation and refutation was able to offset the drop in climate concern but not the reduction in mitigation support.

Hypothesized behavioral host manipulation by SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 infection.

Although not widely studied, behavioral host manipulation by various pathogens has been documented. Host manipulation is the process by which a pathogen evolves adaptations to manipulate the behavior of the host to maximize reproduction (Ro) of the pathogen. The most notable example is rabies. When a host is infected with the rabies virus it gets into the host's central nervous system and triggers hyper aggression. The virus is also present in the rabid animal's saliva so being bitten transmits the infection to a new host and the old host is left to eventually die if untreated. Toxoplasmosis is another example. When mice are infected they demonstrate a fearlessness toward cats, thus increasing their chances of being eaten. Toxoplasmosis needs the digestive tract of the feline to survive. Recent studies have shown that exposure to toxoplasmosis in humans (e.g., through cat feces) has also been associated with behavioral changes that are predicted to enhance the spread of the pathogen. Even the common influenza virus has been shown to selectively increase in-person sociality during the 48-hour incubation period, thus producing an obvious vector for transmission. Here we hypothesize that the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2, which produces the COVID-19 disease may produce similar host manipulations that maximize its transmission between humans.