Influences on Lung Cancer Screening Initiation and Retention in Rural Alabama.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Despite the introduction of lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT), overall screening rates in the U.S. remain low, with certain populations including Black and rural communities experiencing additional disparities. The primary objective of this study was to understand the facilitators of lung cancer screening initiation and retention in Alabama reported by people at risk from mostly rural, mostly Black populations in Jefferson County-including the urban center of Birmingham-and 6 rural counties: Choctaw, Dallas, Greene, Hale, Marengo, and Sumter. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 58 people who underwent lung cancer screening between December 2019 and January 2022. Participant responses were recorded by the interviewer for analysis. Open-ended responses were coded to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: The most reported influences to initiate screening were information or suggestion from a Community Health Advisor (CHAs) or the supervising county coordinator, suggestion from a friend, or consideration of a personal history of smoking. Most participants reported multiple influences. Physicians were not very influential in decisions to initiate screening, but they were extremely influential in participants' intent to continue screening, both positively and negatively. Knowing the recommended timeline for their annual scans was also a predictor of intention to continue screening. Participants screened during the COVID-19 state of emergency expressed less certainty about dates of next scans and more ambivalence about intention to continue screening. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the benefit of using multiple methods to support increased awareness of and interest in lung cancer screening, particularly when educational messaging through CHAs is used. Clear guideline-based messages from healthcare providers about recommended screening is important for increasing retention. COVID-19 related implementation challenges impacted screening recruitment and retention. Future research is warranted to further explore use of CHAs in lung cancer screening.

Effectiveness of first and second COVID‐19 mRNA vaccine monovalent booster doses during a period of circulation of Omicron variant sublineages: December 2021–July 2022

Background US recommendations for COVID‐19 vaccine boosters have expanded in terms of age groups covered and numbers of doses recommended, whereas evolution of Omicron sublineages raises questions about ongoing vaccine effectiveness. Methods We estimated effectiveness of monovalent COVID‐19 mRNA booster vaccination versus two‐dose primary series during a period of Omicron variant virus circulation in a community cohort with active illness surveillance. Hazard ratios comparing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection between booster versus primary series vaccinated individuals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time‐varying booster status. Models were adjusted for age and prior SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The effectiveness of a second booster among adults ≥50 years of age was similarly estimated. Results The analysis included 883 participants ranging in age, from 5 to >90 years. Relative effectiveness was 51% (95% CI: 34%, 64%) favoring the booster compared with primary series vaccination and did not vary by prior infection status. Relative effectiveness was 74% (95% CI: 57%, 84%) at 15 to 90 days after booster receipt, but declined to 42% (95% CI: 16%, 61%) after 91 to 180 days, and to 36% (95% CI: 3%, 58%) after 180 days. The relative effectiveness of a second booster compared to a single booster was 24% (95% CI: −40% to 61%). Conclusions An mRNA vaccine booster dose added significant protection against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, but protection decreased over time. A second booster did not add significant protection for adults ≥50 years of age. Uptake of recommended bivalent boosters should be encouraged to increase protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages.

Effectiveness of first and second COVID-19 mRNA vaccine monovalent booster doses during a period of circulation of Omicron variant sublineages: December 2021-July 2022.

Background: US recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine boosters have expanded in terms of age groups covered and numbers of doses recommended, whereas evolution of Omicron sublineages raises questions about ongoing vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We estimated effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination versus two-dose primary series during a period of Omicron variant virus circulation in a community cohort with active illness surveillance. Hazard ratios comparing SARS-CoV-2 infection between booster versus primary series vaccinated individuals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying booster status. Models were adjusted for age and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of a second booster among adults ≥50 years of age was similarly estimated. Results: The analysis included 883 participants ranging in age, from 5 to >90 years. Relative effectiveness was 51% (95% CI: 34%, 64%) favoring the booster compared with primary series vaccination and did not vary by prior infection status. Relative effectiveness was 74% (95% CI: 57%, 84%) at 15 to 90 days after booster receipt, but declined to 42% (95% CI: 16%, 61%) after 91 to 180 days, and to 36% (95% CI: 3%, 58%) after 180 days. The relative effectiveness of a second booster compared to a single booster was 24% (95% CI: -40% to 61%). Conclusions: An mRNA vaccine booster dose added significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but protection decreased over time. A second booster did not add significant protection for adults ≥50 years of age. Uptake of recommended bivalent boosters should be encouraged to increase protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages.

Multiplex Detection of Antibody Landscapes to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/Influenza/Common Human Coronaviruses Following Vaccination or Infection With SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses continue to co-circulate, representing 2 major public health threats from respiratory infections with similar clinical presentations. SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccines can also now be co-administered. However, data on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection and vaccine co-administration remain limited. METHODS: We developed a 41-plex antibody immunity assay that can simultaneously characterize antibody landscapes to SARS-CoV-2/influenza/common human coronaviruses. We analyzed sera from 840 individuals (11-93 years), including sera from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 218) and -negative (n = 120) cases, paired sera from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n = 29) and infection (n = 11), and paired sera from influenza vaccination (n = 56) and RT-PCR-confirmed influenza infection (n = 158) cases. Last, we analyzed sera collected from 377 individuals who exhibited acute respiratory illness (ARI) in 2020. RESULTS: This 41-plex assay has high sensitivity and specificity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections. It differentiated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (antibody responses only to spike protein) from infection (antibody responses to both spike and nucleoprotein). No cross-reactive antibodies were induced to SARS-CoV-2 from influenza vaccination and infection, and vice versa, suggesting no interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza antibody responses. However, cross-reactive antibodies were detected between spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and common human coronaviruses that were removed by serum adsorption. Among 377 individuals who exhibited ARI in 2020, 129 were influenza positive; none had serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2/influenza coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex detection of antibody landscapes can provide in-depth analysis of the antibody protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of other respiratory viruses, including influenza.

Benefits and Limitations of Virtual Recruitment: Perspectives From Subspeciality Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and recommendations from a range of leaders and organizations, the pediatrics subspecialty 2020 recruitment season was entirely virtual. Minimal data exist on the effect of this change to guide future strategies. The aim of this study was to understand the effects of virtual recruitment on pediatric subspecialty programs as perceived by program leaders. METHODS: This concurrent, triangulation, mixed-methods study used a survey that was developed through an iterative (3 cycles), consensus-building, modified Delphi process and sent to all pediatric subspecialty program directors (PSPDs) between April and May 2021. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used, and a conceptual framework was developed. RESULTS: Forty-two percent (352 of 840) of PSPDs responded from 16 of the 17 pediatric (94%) subspecialties; 60% felt the virtual interview process was beneficial to their training program. A majority of respondents (72%) reported cost savings were a benefit; additional benefits included greater efficiency of time, more applicants per day, greater faculty involvement, and perceived less time away from residency for applicants. PSPDs reported a more diverse applicant pool. Without an in-person component, PSPDs worried about programs and applicants missing informative, in-person interactions and applicants missing hospital tours and visiting the city. A model based upon theory of change was developed to aid program considerations for future application cycles. CONCLUSIONS: PSPDs identified several benefits to virtual recruitment, including ease of accommodating increased applicants with a diverse applicant pool and enhanced faculty involvement. Identified limitations included reduced interaction between the applicant and the larger institution/city.

Leveraging Accountable Care Organization infrastructure for rapid pandemic response in independent primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Population risk segmentation and technology-enabled preventive care workflows are core competencies for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) that may also have relevance for public health emergencies. METHODS: During the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to leverage existing ACO capabilities to support 467 primary care practices across 27 states with pandemic response. We used Medicare claims and electronic health records to identify patients with increased COVID-19 vulnerability, for proactive outreach and guidance for "Staying Well at Home." RESULTS: 302,125 patients met intervention criteria; 45% were reached within the first 6 weeks. Engagement in the initiative was uneven among ACO-participating practices. ACO staff identified prior practice engagement in core ACO workflows as a major facilitator of success and staffing shortages as a major barrier. Small practice size, non-metropolitan location, penetration of value-based payment models in the practice, and pre-pandemic Annual Wellness Visit completion rates were independently associated with successful outreach to COVID-vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid adaptation of ACO infrastructure assisted independent practices across the country to reach vulnerable patients with proactive guidance for staying well at home. The initiative was most successful in smaller, non-metropolitan practices and those with greater engagement in core ACO initiatives pre-pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: Our experience suggests that primary care participation in accountable care models can contribute to preparedness for future public health crises.

mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a prospective community cohort, rural Wisconsin, November 2020 to December 2021.

Reduced COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been observed with increasing predominance of SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. Two-dose VE against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (symptomatic and asymptomatic) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying vaccination status in a prospective rural community cohort of 1266 participants aged ≥12 years. Between November 3, 2020 and December 7, 2021, VE was 56% for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines overall, 65% for Moderna, and 50% for Pfizer-BioNTech. VE when Delta predominated (June to December 2021) was 54% for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines overall, 59% for Moderna, and 52% for Pfizer-BioNTech.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 among symptomatic persons aged ≥12 years with reported contact with COVID-19 cases, February-September 2021.

BACKGROUND: Individuals in contact with persons with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing COVID-19; protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines in the context of known exposure is poorly understood. METHODS: Symptomatic outpatients aged ≥12 years reporting acute onset of COVID-19-like illness and tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 1 and September 30, 2021 were enrolled. Participants were stratified by self-report of having known contact with a COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to illness onset. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated using the test-negative study design and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2229 participants, 283/451 (63%) of those reporting contact and 331/1778 (19%) without known contact tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-83%) among fully vaccinated participants reporting a known contact versus 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) among those with no known contact (p-value for interaction = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to growing evidence of the benefits of vaccinations in preventing COVID-19 and support vaccination recommendations and the importance of efforts to increase vaccination coverage.

Evaluation of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Cardiovascular Disease Among Older Women in the US.

Importance: Social isolation and loneliness are increasing public health concerns and have been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older adults. Objective: To examine the associations of social isolation and loneliness with incident CVD in a large cohort of postmenopausal women and whether social support moderated these associations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, conducted from March 2011 through March 2019, included community-living US women aged 65 to 99 years from the Women's Health Initiative Extension Study II who had no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary heart disease. Exposures: Social isolation and loneliness were ascertained using validated questionnaires. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was major CVD, which was physician adjudicated using medical records and included coronary heart disease, stroke, and death from CVD. Continuous scores of social isolation and loneliness were analyzed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for CVD were calculated for women with high social isolation and loneliness scores (midpoint of the upper half of the distribution) vs those with low scores (midpoint of the lower half of the distribution) using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, educational level, and depression and then adding relevant health behavior and health status variables. Questionnaire-assessed social support was tested as a potential effect modifier. Results: Among 57 825 women (mean [SD] age, 79.0 [6.1] years; 89.1% White), 1599 major CVD events occurred over 186 762 person-years. The HR for the association of high vs low social isolation scores with CVD was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.13-1.23), and the HR for the association of high vs low loneliness scores with CVD was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.10-1.18). The HRs after additional adjustment for health behaviors and health status were 1.08 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12; 8.0% higher risk) for social isolation and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09; 5.0% higher risk) for loneliness. Women with both high social isolation and high loneliness scores had a 13.0% to 27.0% higher risk of incident CVD than did women with low social isolation and low loneliness scores. Social support was not a significant effect modifier of the associations (social isolation × social support: r, -0.18; P = .86; loneliness × social support: r, 0.78; P = .48). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, social isolation and loneliness were independently associated with modestly higher risk of CVD among postmenopausal women in the US, and women with both social isolation and loneliness had greater CVD risk than did those with either exposure alone. The findings suggest that these prevalent psychosocial processes merit increased attention for prevention of CVD in older women, particularly in the era of COVID-19.

Messenger RNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Symptomatic Outpatients Aged ≥16 Years in the United States, February-May 2021.

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19-like illness or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged ≥16 years, the VE of messenger RNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% confidence interval, 83%-95%) for full vaccination and 75% (55%-87%) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care.

Lung Cancer and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: Identifying Important Knowledge Gaps for Investigation.

Patients with lung cancer are especially vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a greater than sevenfold higher rate of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19, a greater than threefold higher hospitalization rate with high complication rates, and an estimated case fatality rate of more than 30%. The reasons for the increased vulnerability are not known. In addition, beyond the direct impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer, COVID-19, with its disruption of patient care, has also resulted in substantial impact on lung cancer screening and treatment/management.COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in people with lung cancer. On the basis of the available data, patients with lung cancer should continue their course of cancer treatment and get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For unknown reasons, some patients with lung cancer mount poor antibody responses to vaccination. Thus, boosting vaccination seems urgently indicated in this subgroup of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions regarding vaccination in this population remain, including the magnitude, quality, and duration of antibody response and the role of innate and acquired cellular immunities for clinical protection. Additional important knowledge gaps also remain, including the following: how can we best protect patients with lung cancer from developing COVID-19, including managing care in patient with lung cancer and the home environment of patients with lung cancer; are there clinical/treatment demographics and tumor molecular demographics that affect severity of COVID-19 disease in patients with lung cancer; does anticancer treatment affect antibody production and protection; does SARS-CoV-2 infection affect the development/progression of lung cancer; and are special measures and vaccine strategies needed for patients with lung cancer as viral variants of concern emerge.

Modification to Systemic Anticancer Therapy at the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic and its Overall Impact on Survival Outcomes in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple changes to the provision of cancer care has been introduced to maximize patient safety and protect staff. We aimed to identify factors influencing clinicians' decision on treatment modification during the initial phase of the pandemic, and to assess its impact on outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic records of patients seen in a large United Kingdom tertiary cancer center was reviewed. The frequency and type of changes to systemic anticancer therapy , as well as the factors predicting clinicians' decision were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 418 patients; mean age 63 ± 12 years and 57% male were included. More than half of the patients had modification to their treatment; with treatment delay (21%) or cancellation (10%), being the most common. Majority of patients on neoadjuvant treatment (97%) proceeded with treatment, with some form of treatment modification in 20%. Half of patients on adjuvant treatment had their treatment plan modified. Overall, a change in treatment was more likely in older patients (OR 1.028 [95% CI 1.010-1.047]; P = .002), and in patients who had already received higher number of cycles of systemic anticancer therapy (OR 1.040 [95% CI 1.016-1.065]; P = .001). A change in treatment was less likely further out of the first national lockdown (OR 0.837 [95% CI 0.758-0.925]; P < .001). Patients on third-line treatment were most likely to have alterations to their treatment plan (69%, n=33/48). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom, clinicians adapted clinical practice in accordance to local and national guidance, especially amongst older patients and those on third-line treatment. Further real-world data are needed to document the important impact of changes to treatment on outcomes in patients with cancer.

Decreasing primary care use and blood pressure monitoring during COVID-19.

Among a group of primary care accountable care organizations, patients with hypertension were 50% less likely to have a blood pressure recorded in April compared with February.

Risk of symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection not associated with influenza vaccination in the 2019-2020 season.

The association of influenza vaccine and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was assessed by test-negative design using data collected for a study of outpatient COVID-19-like illness with onset dates from June to September 2020. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between receipt of 2019-2020 influenza vaccine and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with adjustment for potential confounders. Receipt of influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 influenza season was not associated with increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.10) or children (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.80).

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Posttraumatic Stress, Grief, Burnout, and Secondary Trauma of Social Workers in the United States.

The purpose of this study is to measure posttraumatic stress, grief, burnout, and secondary trauma experienced by employed social workers in the United States and to describe organizational support provided to social workers during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study used data from the first wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emotional Well-Being Study, a prospective panel study examining the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and includes a sample of 181 social workers. We conducted univariate analyses. Over a quarter (26.21%) of social workers met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and 16.22% reported severe grief symptoms. While 99.19% of the sample reported average to high compassion satisfaction, 63.71% reported average burnout and 49.59% reported average secondary trauma. Findings indicate that social workers are reporting higher than national estimates of PTSD, indicating a greater need for more emotional support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the significance and severity of the pandemic, it is essential that organizations provide resources for both immediate and ongoing support for the emotional well-being of their employees.

Clinical Symptoms Among Ambulatory Patients Tested for SARS-CoV-2.

We compared symptoms and characteristics of 4961 ambulatory patients with and without laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Findings indicate that clinical symptoms alone would be insufficient to distinguish between coronavirus disease 2019 and other respiratory infections (eg, influenza) and/or to evaluate the effects of preventive interventions (eg, vaccinations).