Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.

Effects of Smoking on SARS-CoV-2 Positivity: A Study of a Large Health System in Northern and Central California.

Introduction: COVID-19 continues to impact vulnerable populations disproportionally. Identifying modifiable risk factors could lead to targeted interventions to reduce infections. The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Using electronic health records collected from a large ambulatory care system in northern and central California, the study identified patients who had a test for SARS-CoV-2 between 2/20/2020 and 3/31/2021. The adjusted effect of active and passive smoking and other risk factors on the probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2021. Results: Of 556 690 eligible patients in our sample, 70 564 (12.7%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Younger age, being male, racial/ethnic minorities, and having mild major comorbidities were significantly associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Current smokers (adjusted OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and former smokers (adjusted OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.95) were less likely than nonsmokers to be lab-confirmed positive, but no statistically significant differences were found when comparing passive smokers with non-smokers. The patients with missing smoking status (25.7%) were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with major comorbidities (adjusted OR ranges from severe: 2.52, 95% CI = 2.36-2.69 to mild: 3.28, 95% CI = 3.09-3.48), lower income (adjusted OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.85-0.86), aged 80 years or older (adjusted OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07-1.16), have less access to primary care (adjusted OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.07-0.07), and identify as racial ethnic minorities (adjusted OR ranges from Hispanic: 1.61, 95% CI = 1.56-1.65 to Non-Hispanic Black: 2.60, 95% CI = 2.5-2.69). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were significantly lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers. Other risk factors include missing data on smoking status, being under 18, being male, being a racial/ethnic minority, and having mild major comorbidities. Since those with missing data on smoking status were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with higher smoking rates, the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among smokers may have been underestimated due to missing data on smoking status. Future studies should investigate the risk of severe outcomes among active and passive smokers, the role that exposure to tobacco smoke constitutes among nonsmokers, the role of comorbidities in COVID-19 disease course, and health disparities experienced by disadvantaged groups.

Do Patients Continue to Use Video Visits? Factors Related to Continued Video Visit Use.

Many studies have assessed the factors associated with overall video visit use during the COVID-19 pandemic, but little is known about who is most likely to continue to use video visits and why. The authors combined a survey with electronic health record data to identify factors affecting the continued use of video visit. In August 2020, a stratified random sample of 20,000 active patients from a large health care system were invited to complete an email survey on health care seeking preferences during the COVID. Weighted logistic regression models were applied, adjusting for sampling frame and response bias, to identify factors associated with video visit experience, and separately for preference of continued use of video visits. Actual video visit utilization was also estimated within 12 months after the survey. Three thousand three hundred fifty-one (17.2%) patients completed the survey. Of these, 1208 (36%) reported having at least 1 video visit in the past, lowest for African American (33%) and highest for Hispanic (41%). Of these, 38% would prefer a video visit in the future. The strongest predictors of future video visit use were comfort using video interactions (odds ratio [OR] = 5.30, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.57-7.85) and satisfaction with the overall quality (OR = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.66-5.86). Interestingly, despite a significantly higher satisfaction for Hispanic (40%-55%) and African American (40%-50%) compared with Asian (29%-39%), Hispanic (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.12-0.88) and African American (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.16-0.90) were less likely to prefer a future video visit. Disparity exists in the use of video visit. The association between patient satisfaction and continued video visit varies by race/ethnicity, which may change the future long-term video visit use among race/ethnicity groups.

Patient Preferences for Preventive Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Integrated Health System.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused healthcare systems and patients to cancel or postpone healthcare services, particularly preventive care. Many patients still have not received these services raising concerns about the potential for preventable morbidity and mortality. At Sutter Health, a large integrated healthcare system in Northern California, we conducted a population-based email survey in August 2020 to evaluate perceptions and preferences about where, when, and how healthcare is delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 3351 patients completed surveys, and 42.6% reported that they would "wait until they felt safe" before receiving a colonoscopy as compared to 22.4% for a mammogram. The doctor's office was the most common preferred location for receiving vaccines/shots (79.9%), though many also reported preferring an outdoor setting or in a car (63.7%). With over 40% of patients reporting that they would "wait until they feel safe" for a colonoscopy, healthcare systems could focus on promoting other evidence-based options such a fecal-occult blood test to ensure timely colon cancer screening.

Differences in IgG Antibody Responses following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Studies examining antibody responses by vaccine brand are lacking and may be informative for optimizing vaccine selection, dosage, and regimens. The purpose of this study is to assess IgG antibody responses following immunization with BNT162b2 (30 µg mRNA) and mRNA-1273 (100 µg mRNA) vaccines. A cohort of clinicians at a nonprofit organization is being assessed clinically and serologically following immunization with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. IgG responses were measured at the Remington Laboratory by an IgG assay against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-receptor binding domain. Mixed-effect linear (MEL) regression modeling was used to examine whether the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level differed by vaccine brand, dosage, or number of days since vaccination. Among 532 SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants, 530 (99.6%) seroconverted with either vaccine. After adjustments for age and gender, MEL regression modeling revealed that the average IgG antibody level increased after the second dose compared to the first dose (P < 0.001). Overall, titers peaked at week 6 for both vaccines. Titers were significantly higher for the mRNA-1273 vaccine on days 14 to 20 (P < 0.05), 42 to 48 (P < 0.01), 70 to 76 (P < 0.05), and 77 to 83 (P < 0.05) and higher for the BNT162b2 vaccine on days 28 to 34 (P < 0.001). In two participants taking immunosuppressive drugs, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response remained negative. mRNA-1273 elicited higher IgG antibody responses than BNT162b2, possibly due to the higher S-protein delivery. Prospective clinical and serological follow-up of defined cohorts such as this may prove useful in determining antibody protection and whether differences in antibody kinetics between the vaccines have manufacturing relevance and clinical significance. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 vaccines using the mRNA platform have become one of the most powerful tools to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. mRNA vaccines enable human cells to produce and present the virus spike protein to their immune system, leading to protection from severe illness. Two mRNA vaccines have been widely implemented, mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). We found that, following the second dose, spike protein antibodies were higher with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. This is biologically plausible, since mRNA-1273 delivers a larger amount of mRNA (100 µg mRNA) than BNT162b2 (30 µg mRNA), which is translated into spike protein. This difference may need to be urgently translated into changes in the manufacturing process and dose regimens of these vaccines.

Women, Younger Clinicians', and Caregivers' Experiences of Burnout and Well-being During COVID-19 in a US Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought rapid changes to the work and personal lives of clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician burnout and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and guide healthcare system improvement efforts. DESIGN: A survey asking about clinician burnout, well-being, and work experiences. PARTICIPANTS: Surveys distributed to 8141 clinicians from June to August 2020 in 9 medical groups and 17 hospitals at Sutter Health, a large healthcare system in Northern California. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout was the primary outcome, and other indicators of well-being and work experience were also measured. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. All statistical inferences were based on weighted estimates adjusting for response bias. KEY RESULTS: A total of 3176 clinicians (39.0%) responded to the survey. Weighted results showed 29.2% reported burnout, and burnout was more common among women than among men (39.0% vs. 22.7%, p<0.01). In multivariate models, being a woman was associated with increased odds of reporting burnout (OR=2.19, 95% CI: 1.51-3.17) and being 55+ years old with lower odds (OR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). More women than men reported that childcare/caregiving was impacting work (32.9% vs. 19.0%, p<0.01). Even after controlling for age and gender, clinicians who reported childcare/caregiving responsibilities impacted their work had substantially higher odds of reporting burnout (OR=2.19, 95% CI: 1.54-3.11). Other factors associated with higher burnout included worrying about safety at work, being given additional work tasks, concern about losing one's job, and working in emergency medicine or radiology. Protective factors included believing one's concerns will be acted upon and feeling highly valued. CONCLUSIONS: This large survey found the pandemic disproportionally impacted women, younger clinicians, and those whose caregiving responsibilities impacted their work. These results highlight the need for a holistic and targeted strategy for improving clinician well-being that addresses the needs of women, younger clinicians, and those with caregiving responsibilities.