ABSTRACT
Introduction/Aim: The fifth objective of the 2018 National Asthma Strategy called for the development of a national research agenda. Asthma Australia and partners have completed this project: the National Asthma Research Agenda. Method(s): A national, mixed-method study design adapted from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership was adopted. Comprising two discrete phases . A cross-sectional purposive survey of people with asthma, their careers, clinicians and public health professional. The survey findings were analysed thematically. Themes containing questions already answered by high quality research were removed. The project executive team approved the remaining list of themes for phase 2. Three consensus workshops were held comprising health and policy professionals, people with asthma, parents and people from diverse backgrounds to achieve consensus on prioritising and ranking the themes. Workshop participants did this under the guidance of a trained/skilled facilitator. The ranked themes from the workshops were filtered through a computer algorithm, resulting in a top ten list of asthma research priority themes. These themes summarise specific topics and questions and form the National Asthma Research Agenda. Result(s): 593 people completed the survey. Most respondents were female and had asthma. The top ten research priority themes are: Asthma in children Asthma and COVID-19 Asthma care and self-management Diagnosis and medication Managing asthma attacks Causes, prevention and features of asthma Mental health Asthma and ageing Severe asthma Asthma and other health conditions These themes include sub-topics, which reflect the specific inputs of the survey participants. Results were consistent among subgroups. Conclusion(s): The end-user methodology used has been useful in determining what's important to the people who rely on the answers provided by asthma research in Australia. This is a broad research agenda, which highlights the extent of research output that consumers require in order to manage asthma.
ABSTRACT
Background: CMS uses the Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating program to stratify hospitals based on specific quality criteria (e.g., 30-day readmissions of older adults with pneumonia). "STARS patients” experience more readmissions, longer LOS and often have more complex discharge plans. During the second surge of COVID we implemented a program to increase hospice referrals through early identification and implementation of goals of care (GOC) conversations. Methods: Electronic Medical Records reviewed for STARS patients from pre- (1/2019-7/2020) and post (3/2021–2/2022) program implementation. Location: 2 community-based hospitals. Data collected: demographics, hospital outcomes, discharge disposition. Data compared with Student's t tests and Chi square. Results: 459 patients, 177 pre-program and 282 post-program were included. Groups were similar in age (83.0 vs 83.6), LACE score (13.0 vs 12.8), principal diagnoses (PNA: 41.5% vs 46.0%, HF/COPD/AMI: 58.5% vs 54.0%), and mortality (3.5 vs. 4.0%). LOS increased 4.9 days vs. 6.1 days (p < 0.01), readmission rates unchanged: 12.6% vs 13.0% (p=0.90). GOC conversations increased, 48.6% to 75.0% (p < 0.01), DNR from 24% to 44% (p < 0.01), and comfort measures from 0.5% to 5% (p < 0.01). Hospice referrals increased from 0.5% to 11.2% (p < 0.01). Discussion: Early identification of STARS patients increased GOC conversations, DNR, comfort measures and hospice referral. Patients across time periods were similar in age, LACE and admitting diagnoses. LOS increased by a day, likely reflecting time needed to arrange discharge disposition. Increased hospice at end-of-life is associated with better quality care and patient/family satisfaction. This program may be adapted to larger, academic medical centers within the health system.
ABSTRACT
Background:Symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 primary vaccination among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are generally similar to the general population,although symptoms after the second dose are more frequent and severe than after the first dose.Postvaccination symptoms after a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose in the predominantly immune-compromised IBD population is unknown.Methods:Adults with IBD participating in the prospective Coronavirus Risk Associations and Longitudinal Evaluation in IBD (CORALE-IBD) vaccine registry who received a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose were asked to complete a detailed symptom survey 1 week after vaccination.Symptoms were assessed across 11 organ systems,and graded as mild,moderate,or severe,or requiring hospitalization.“Severe+” referred to those with severe symptoms or who required hospitalization.We stratified by age (<or> 50 years) given prior distinct symptom profiles after dose 2 (D2).We also evaluated whether severe+ symptoms after D2 predicted severe+ symptoms after dose 3 (D3).Results:We included 524 participants (70% female, mean age 45 years) who received a 3rd mRNA vaccine through October 11, 2021.Most had Crohn's disease (71%), and 89% were on biologic therapies.Most (58%) had received primary vaccination with BNT562b2,and only 3.5% reported prior COVID infection at the time of initial vaccination.Overall, 97% of subjects received a 3rd dose with the same mRNA vaccine as in their initial series with the remainder receiving the other mRNA vaccine type.No participants received a 3rd dose with the Ad26.CoV.2 (J&J) vaccine. Overall, 41% reported symptoms after a 3rd dose,with symptoms generally more frequent and severe among those <55 years (Table).The most frequent postvaccination symptom was injection site pain (39%).Common systemic symptoms included fatigue/malaise (34%),headache (23%),and muscle, bone or joint symptoms (13%).These were all less frequent after D3 than after D2 (Figure).Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 8.8%, which was slightly more frequent than after D2 (7.8%).Among those with postvaccination symptoms, the proportion with severe symptoms after D3 was lower than D2 for fatigue/ malaise, headache, dizziness and lightheadedness, fever/chills, and rheumatologic symptoms, but was slightly higher than D2 for gastrointestinal symptoms.Severe+ symptoms were seen in 17% after D2 and in 14% after D3. Of those with severe+ symptoms after D2, 34% had severe+ symptoms after D3.In contrast, about 22% had severe+ symptoms after D3 but did not report severe+ symptoms after D2.Conclusion:The frequency and severity of symptoms after a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose are generally similar or lower than those after a second dose.Furthermore, prior severe+ symptoms after D2 do not necessarily predict severe+ symptoms after D3. Further evaluation of postvaccination gastrointestinal symptoms in this population is warranted. (Figure Presented) (Table Presented)
ABSTRACT
Background: Vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection is predominantly mediated by humoral immunity;protection against disease progression is primarily determined by cellular immunity. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have high rates of post-vaccination anti-Spike IgG [IgG(S)] seroconversion, but postvaccination immune responses relative to non-IBD controls have not been well described. We aimed to assess post-vaccination humoral (antibody) and cellular (T-cell) responses in IBD relative to healthcare worker (HCW) controls. Methods: We evaluated IBD patients enrolled in a US registry referred from 26 centers at 2, 8, and 16 weeks after completing 2 doses of SARSCoV- 2 mRNA vaccination and compared results to non-IBD non-immunosuppressed HCW participating in a parallel study. We analyzed plasma antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the viral spike protein using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG-II assay (Abbott Labs, Abbott Park, IL);IgG(S) > 50 AU/mL was defined as positive. Those with prior COVID were excluded. We also performed T-cell clonal analysis by T-cell receptor (TCR) immunosequencing at 8 weeks (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). The breadth (number of unique sequences to a given protein) and depth (relative abundance of all the unique sequences to a given protein) of the T-cell clonal response were quantified using reference datasets. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex and vaccine type. Results: Overall, 1805 subjects were included (IBD n=1074 (65% Crohn's disease, 35% ulcerative colitis);HCW n=731). Age and sex were similar between both cohorts;Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were less common among IBD than HCW (Table). Vaccine type included BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (75% of IBD, 98% of HCW) and the remainder mRNA-1274 (Moderna). IBD treatments included anti- TNF (46%), other biologics (33%), other immune suppressing therapy (9%), and no immune suppression (12%). Postvaccination antibody levels were lower among IBD than HCW both before and after adjusting for vaccine type (p<0.0001 each timepoint;Figure). After further restricting the IBD cohort to those on no immune-suppressive therapies, antibodies remained lower in IBD vs HCW at 2w (p=0.008) and 8w (p<0.0001), but not 16w (p=0.07). Among 321 subjects with available whole cell samples at 8 weeks (IBD n=163, HCW =158), Spikespecific TCR responses were similar between IBD and HCW for both clonal breadth and depth in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses;sub-analyses of those on biologics yielded similar results. Conclusion: Patients with IBD have dampened humoral responses, but similar cellular responses, after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination relative to HCW. These findings suggest a potentially greater risk of infection, but not of disease progression, among those with IBD, and should be considered to help guide booster dosing strategies for the IBD population. (Figure Presented) (Figure Presented) Figure: Post-vaccination immune responses: (A) Antibody responses are lower in IBD relative to non-IBD healthcare workers at 2, 8, and 16 weeks (p<0.0001 at each timepoint). In contrast, post-vaccination Spike-specific T-cell receptor clonal breadth (B1) and clonal depth (B2) at 8 weeks are similar in IBD compared to healthcare workers.