ABSTRACT
Background: Prospective, deeply phenotyped research cohorts monitoring people with multiple sclerosis (MS) depend on careful participant engagement that was threatened by COVID19- related restrictions to in-clinic visits. Coincidentally, there was forced adoption of televideo-enabled care. Objective(s): To leverage a natural experiment of "going virtual" during the pandemic to evaluate two hypotheses pertaining to remote MS research: that (1) global costs of remote visits are lower, and (2) disability evaluations are non-inferior. Method(s): Between 3/2020 and 12/2021, 207 UCSF EPIC/ ORIGINS MS cohort participants underwent hybrid in-clinic and virtual research visits. Among these, 96 contributed 100 'matched visits', i.e. in-clinic (Neurostatus, NS-EDSS) and remote (televideo-, tele-EDSS;electronic patient-reported, ePR-EDSS) evaluations within 14 days. Clinical and socio/ demographic characteristics were collected. First, visit costs were compared. Then, the quality of data extracted was compared using non-inferiority design with NS-EDSS as primary outcome. Result(s): The 96 participants contributing 100 matched visits had mean age 41.4 years (SD 11.7) and MS duration 1.4 years (SD 3.4);69% were female and 72% White, 8% lived in lowincome zip codes;median driving distance was 70 miles (mean 545). The costs of remote visits to participants (travel, caregiver time), to research (facilities, personnel, parking, participant compensation), and carbon footprint were all lower than in-person visits (p<0.05 for each). Median cohort EDSS was similar, whether evaluated using NS-EDSS (2), tele-EDSS (1.5) or ePREDSS (2), with range 0-6.5. Utilizing a TOST for Non-inferiority, both remote evaluations were non-inferior to NS-EDSS within+/-0.5 EDSS point (p<0.01 for each). Year-to-year, the % of participants with worsening/stable/improved EDSS scores was similar, whether the annual evaluations both used NS-EDSS, or whether the annual evaluation switched from NS-EDSS to tele-EDSS. Discussion(s): "Going virtual" during the pandemic represented a natural experiment in which to test hypotheses about remote research visits. These visits lowered costs for investigators and participants. Further, remote assessments were non-inferior to NS-EDSS and for more precision, could be supplemented with biosensors. Together, these insights support the conduct of research that is more inclusive to participants regardless of geography, race, income, opportunity costs or ability level.
ABSTRACT
Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has infected over 870,000 Canadians and caused 22,000 deaths. Many patients are attempting to balance health and financial stability. Therefore, we sought to determine how physicians who frequently prescribe immunosuppressive medications are counselling patients on return-to-work prior to widespread vaccine distribution and understand their decision processes. Methods We administered a survey through the Canadian Rheumatology, Gastroenterology and Dermatology Associations. Physicians were asked whether patients have requested counselling on return-to-work during the pandemic and how they decide what advice to provide. They were shown seven clinical scenarios of patients on immunosuppressive medications, then asked whether they would provide a medical note advocating for delayed return-to-work or modified duties to reduce exposure. Results 151 physicians took the survey. 94% were asked for advice on return-to-work. 33% felt informed enough to provide counselling. When patients requested a medical note, physicians provided one 25% of the time. Factors most associated with providing notes were patient comorbidities, age, glucocorticoids, high risk work and vulnerable co-inhabitants. Conventional synthetic and biologic immunosuppressants did not prompt most physicians to provide a note. Respondents considered patient perspectives and workplace factors. Several requested guidelines to approach these encounters. Conclusion Almost all rheumatologists, dermatologists and gastroenterologists have been asked to counsel patients on returning to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most do not feel informed enough to do so. Medical notes for acconunodations are only provided a minority of the time, unless specific factors (e.g. glucocorticoids) are present. Guidance is needed to inform these decisions.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has infected over 870,000 Canadians and caused 22,000 deaths. Many patients are attempting to balance health and financial stability. Therefore, we sought to determine how physicians who frequently prescribe immunosuppressive medications are counselling patients on return-to-work prior to widespread vaccine distribution and understand their decision processes. METHODS: We administered a survey through the Canadian Rheumatology, Gastroenterology and Dermatology Associations. Physicians were asked whether patients have requested counselling on return-to-work during the pandemic and how they decide what advice to provide. They were shown seven clinical scenarios of patients on immunosuppressive medications, then asked whether they would provide a medical note advocating for delayed return-to-work or modified duties to reduce exposure. RESULTS: 151 physicians took the survey. 94% were asked for advice on return-to-work. 33% felt informed enough to provide counselling. When patients requested a medical note, physicians provided one 25% of the time. Factors most associated with providing notes were patient comorbidities, age, glucocorticoids, high risk work and vulnerable co-inhabitants. Conventional synthetic and biologic immunosuppressants did not prompt most physicians to provide a note. Respondents considered patient perspectives and workplace factors. Several requested guidelines to approach these encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all rheumatologists, dermatologists and gastroenterologists have been asked to counsel patients on returning to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most do not feel informed enough to do so. Medical notes for accommodations are only provided a minority of the time, unless specific factors (e.g. glucocorticoids) are present. Guidance is needed to inform these decisions.