ABSTRACT
Background: In our multi-disciplinary airways service, we assess refractory breathlessness due to suspected inducible laryngeal obstruction (ILO) and/or breathing pattern disorder (BPD). A significant proportion of patients have evidence of uncontrolled co-morbidity, including rhinitis and asthma, which aggravate airway symptoms. Aim(s): To identify the impact of rhinitis management on i) nasal symptoms ii) asthma control and iii) cough control, for individuals referred with suspected ILO +/- BPD and evidence of rhinitis. Method(s): Patient demographics/clinical data were collected between January 2021 and January 2022. Symptoms were recorded using the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) in those with asthma and a 10-point self-rating scale in chronic refractory cough (CRC). Result(s): Data were available for 43 patients [72% female, 18% atopic, median (IQR) age 54 (41-64) years] with symptoms of rhinitis, confirmed by nasendoscopy in 41% (not all patients had nasendoscopy due to COVID-19 pandemic). Co-morbidities included asthma 54% (39%, of whom were on biologic treatment), CRC (21%), ILO (35%) and BPD (35%). Rhinitis management comprised education (100%), nasal corticosteroids (91%), saline nasal douche (49%) and antihistamines (10%). TNSS scores improved [from 5 (4-6) to 3 (2-4), p<0.001] following intervention. In those with asthma, there was improvement in ACQ [2.98 (2.15-3.70) to 2.00 (0.95-3.05), p<0.001], and in those with chronic refractory cough in self-rating score [8 (4-9) to 2 (2-6), p=0.11]. Conclusion(s): Optimisation of medical treatment for individuals with rhinitis is important and can improve outcomes in patients with asthma, CRC, ILO and BPD.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare. It has forced orthopaedic surgeons to limit face-to-face patient contact. This resulted in the ad hoc creation of a virtual arthroplasty clinic (VAC) in Irish National Orthopaedic Hospital. We aimed to assess this new VAC and ascertain its effectiveness as an alternative to physical appointments during and following the pandemic. Materials and methods: Patients were followed-up in this VAC six weeks post-operatively. A service evaluation of this virtual arthroplasty clinic was carried out using a questionnaire created by the orthopaedic department. Results: A total of 30 patients requiring 6-week follow-up after the arrival of COVID-19 in Ireland were included. Average pre- and post-operative visual analogue scale score (VAS) was 8.1 and 2.3, respectively. Average pre- and postoperative Oxford hip and knee score was 19.1 and 39.2, respectively. Twenty-one patients (70%) were happy to have their six weeks post-operative e-outpatient consultation virtually. Twenty-six patients (86%) were happy with future virtual follow-up. Twenty-eight patients (93%) would be happy experiencing the whole process again. Eleven patients would be interested in having future joint replacement surgery, though ten of them (91%) stated COVID-19 would impact that decision. Conclusion: Most patients were happy to have their six-week appointment and future appointments virtually. Functional outcome scores had improved and pain scores had reduced at six-week follow-up, supporting the idea that virtual clinics are not inferior to physical clinics. Patients expressed concern about having a further joint replacement in the context of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background: Oncology patients are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes from COVID-19 and require careful monitoring to identify early deterioration and render higher level care when indicated. Several institutions launched remote patient monitoring programs (RPMPs) to care for patients with COVID-19. We describe patients' perspectives on a COVID-19 RPMP at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: Adult patients who had either tested positive for COVID-19 on an outpatient microbiology test or were discharged after hospitalization for the virus were eligible. Patients enrolled in the RPMP received a daily 10-question electronic patient-reported outcome assessment of COVID-19 symptoms and their responses generated alerts to a centralized monitoring team for new or worsening symptoms. A subset of high-risk patients also received a pulse oximeter which alerted when blood oxygen levels dropped below 93%. RPM was discontinued 14 days after a patient's positive test result and following 3 days without worsening symptoms or fever. Patients who exited the program and had completed at least one assessment were sent a patient engagement survey. The objective of the survey was to evaluate the patient's experience with digital monitoring and symptom management for COVID-19. The assessment was structured with objective response questions, including a net promoter score, and free text questions to elicit patient perspectives on RPM value. Free text responses were analyzed using grounded theory to identify primary themes regarding perceived value. Results: The survey was distributed to 452 patients;241 responded as of June 10, 2020 (53% completion rate). The net promoter score was 91%. The table provides responses to objective questions. Qualitative analysis of free text responses identified the primary themes regarding patient perceived value which included: 1) Security: patients appreciated that the RPMP provided a clinical safety net;2) Connection: patients appreciated the link to their clinical team during a period of isolation;3) Empowerment: patients appreciated that the RPMP provided education on the virus and symptom management. Conclusions: RPMPs are perceived to be of value to oncology patients with COVID-19. A key barrier to maintaining these programs is cost. Policymakers should consider how these programs can be reimbursed in the future so that they can continue to provide care to vulnerable patients and keep them at home out of the acute care setting.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancers may have disproportionately severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. Understanding the patient-specific and cancer-specific features that impact the severity of COVID-19 may inform optimal cancer care during this pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined consecutive patients with lung cancer and confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (n = 102) at a single center from 12 March 2020 to 6 May 2020. Thresholds of severity were defined a priori as hospitalization, intensive care unit/intubation/do not intubate ([ICU/intubation/DNI] a composite metric of severe disease), or death. Recovery was defined as >14 days from COVID-19 test and >3 days since symptom resolution. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles were inferred from MSK-IMPACT (n = 46) and compared with controls with lung cancer and no known non-COVID-19 (n = 5166). RESULTS: COVID-19 was severe in patients with lung cancer (62% hospitalized, 25% died). Although severe, COVID-19 accounted for a minority of overall lung cancer deaths during the pandemic (11% overall). Determinants of COVID-19 severity were largely patient-specific features, including smoking status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [odds ratio for severe COVID-19 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.07-9.44 comparing the median (23.5 pack-years) to never-smoker and 3.87, 95% confidence interval 1.35-9.68, respectively]. Cancer-specific features, including prior thoracic surgery/radiation and recent systemic therapies did not impact severity. Human leukocyte antigen supertypes were generally similar in mild or severe cases of COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls. Most patients recovered from COVID-19, including 25% patients initially requiring intubation. Among hospitalized patients, hydroxychloroquine did not improve COVID-19 outcomes. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is associated with high burden of severity in patients with lung cancer. Patient-specific features, rather than cancer-specific features or treatments, are the greatest determinants of severity.