Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 404
Filter
1.
Am J Manag Care ; 28(11): 600-604, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2206465

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant disruption, then recovery, of health care services use. Prior research has not examined the relative rates of resumption of high-value and low-value care. We examined the use of 6 common low-value services that received a D grade from the US Preventive Services Task Force compared with clinically comparable high-value services in a large commercially insured population nationwide from before the pandemic to April 1, 2021. We found that, overall, low-value services and high-value services were disrupted similarly. In aggregate, low-value care declined to 56.2% and high-value care to 53.2% in the initial month of the pandemic (April 2020) relative to baseline (number of visits in 2019 normalized by relevant enrolled population), then rebounded to 83.1% of baseline for low-value services and 95.0% of baseline for high-value services by January 2021. Substantial heterogeneity appeared across clinical contexts, such as prostate cancer screening for men 70 years and older rebounding to 111.8% of baseline and asymptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening remaining at 38.5% of baseline in January 2021. This suggests that although, on average, resuming lower-value services may have been perceived to be a lesser priority by providers and patients, the pandemic may have had heterogeneous effects on consumer and provider decision-making along the dimension of clinical value. This enhances our understanding of how disruptions affect the relationship between clinical value and usage of different services and suggests the need for more targeted interventions to reduce low-value care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods
2.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 28(6): E825-E830, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2107679

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Birth cohort ("baby boomer") screening represents a well-validated strategy for the identification of asymptomatic hepatitis C-infected patients. However, successful linkage of newly diagnosed patients to antiviral therapy has been more difficult to accomplish. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results of a systemwide birth cohort screening program in a US community health care system. DESIGN: We analyzed the data from an ongoing hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and treatment program that was established at NorthShore University Health System in 2015. Hepatitis C virus screening by primary care providers was prompted through automated Best Practice and Health Maintenance alerts. Patient visits and screening orders were tracked using a customized HCV dashboard. Virologic, demographic, and treatment data were assessed and compared with those of a cohort of patients with previously established HCV infection. RESULTS: Since program inception, 61 8161 (64.3%) of the entire NorthShore baby boomer population of 96 001 patients have completed HCV antibody testing, and 160 patients (0.26%) were antibody positive. Of 152 antibody-positive patients who underwent HCV RNA testing, 53 (34.2%) were viremic. A total of 39 of 53 patients (73.6%) underwent antiviral therapy and achieved a sustained virologic response. Compared with patients identified through screening, a comparison cohort of patients with previously established HCV had more advanced fibrosis and significantly lower dropout rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in the number of outpatient visits of screening-eligible patients and with a reduction in HCV screening rates. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate the electronic medical records-assisted systemwide implementation of HCV birth cohort screening and successful linkage to antiviral therapy in a community-based US multihospital system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hepatitis C , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Birth Cohort , Community Health Planning , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Hepatitis C/drug therapy , Hepatitis C/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics , RNA
6.
Curr Oncol ; 29(8): 5644-5654, 2022 08 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2032870

ABSTRACT

Quality medical practice is based on science and evidence. For over a half-century, the efficacy of breast cancer screening has been challenged, particularly for women aged 40-49. As each false claim has been raised, it has been addressed and refuted based on science and evidence. Nevertheless, misinformation continues to be promoted, resulting in confusion for women and their physicians. Early detection has been proven to save lives for women aged 40-74 in randomized controlled trials of mammography screening. Observational studies, failure analyses, and incidence of death studies have provided evidence that there is a major benefit when screening is introduced to the general population. In large part due to screening, there has been an over 40% decline in deaths from breast cancer since 1990. Nevertheless, misinformation about screening continues to be promoted, adding to the confusion. Despite claims to the contrary, a careful reading of the guidelines issued by major groups such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians shows that they all agree that most lives are saved by screening starting at the age of 40. There is no scientific support for using the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women should be provided with the facts and not false information about breast cancer screening so that they can make "informed decisions" for themselves about whether to participate.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Communication , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Female , Humans , Mammography/methods , Mass Screening/methods
7.
Obstet Gynecol ; 140(3): 470-476, 2022 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2032193

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance and acceptability of a modified menstrual pad compared with a clinician-collected high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) sample. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Women presenting for either cervical cancer screening or with a history of high-risk HPV positivity were eligible. Three samples were requested from participants: 1) clinician-collected cervical specimens; 2) self-collected vaginal swabs; and 3) a modified menstrual pad, which was taken home for use during the next menstruation. All samples were processed using the Cobas HPV test. Menstrual pad dried blood spots were eluted, then similarly processed. RESULTS: Of 153 women enrolled in the study, 106 provided menstrual pad samples and clinician-collected cervical specimens for high-risk HPV analysis. For samples in which the interval between the clinician-collected specimen and the menstrual pad sample was less than 2 months, the concordance was 94% (95% CI 83-98). For women who tested positive for high-risk HPV who presented for general screening and those with more than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2, menstrual pad and clinician-collected specimen agreement was 100% (95% CI 32.5-100). Among participants, 22.9% expressed discomfort with the self-collected vaginal swabs and opted out of collection. Overall, 94.0% of participants preferred the menstrual pad over clinician-collected sampling. Twelve patients were found to be positive for HPV on the menstrual pad sample but negative on the clinician-collected specimen. CONCLUSION: Among women who tested positive for HPV, the menstrual pad showed highly concordant results compared with clinician-collected sampling. This collection approach shows promise for integration into cervical cancer prevention programs.


Subject(s)
Alphapapillomavirus , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Papillomaviridae , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Specimen Handling/methods , Vaginal Smears/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 117(9): 1536-1538, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2025669

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a structured telephone reminder system on completion rates of screening fecal immunochemical tests. METHODS: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) return rates were compared among patients who received a telephone reminder after 14 days and those who did not receive a reminder. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher return rate among patients who received a telephone reminder. Automated FIT tracking processes failed to capture a significant percentage of returned FITs compared with manual tracking processes. DISCUSSION: These results support telephone reminders as an effective modality to increase FIT return rates.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Occult Blood , Reminder Systems , Telephone
9.
Cancer Causes Control ; 33(10): 1313-1323, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1982204

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We calculated rates of breast and prostate cancer screening and diagnostic procedures performed during the COVID-19 pandemic through December 2021 compared to the same months in 2019 in a large healthcare provider group in central Massachusetts. METHODS: We included active patients of the provider group between January 2019 and December 2021 aged 30-85 years. Monthly rates of screening mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast MRI, total prostate specific antigen (PSA), and breast or prostate biopsy per 1,000 people were compared by year overall, by age, and race/ethnicity. Completed procedures were identified by relevant codes in electronic health record data. RESULTS: Rates of screening mammography, tomosynthesis, and PSA testing reached the lowest levels in April-May 2020. Breast cancer screening rates decreased 43% in March and 99% in April and May 2020, compared to 2019. Breast cancer screening rates increased gradually beginning in June 2020 through 2021, although more slowly in Black and Hispanic women and in women aged 75-85. PSA testing rates decreased 34% in March, 78% in April, and 53% in May 2020, but rebounded to pre-pandemic levels by June 2020; trends were similar across groups defined by age and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: The observed decline in two common screening procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic reflects the impact of the pandemic on cancer early detection and signals potential downstream effects on the prognosis of delayed cancer diagnoses. The slower rate of return for breast cancer screening procedures in certain subgroups should be investigated to ensure all women return for routine screenings.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Male , Mammography/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology
10.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 31(8): 1521-1531, 2022 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1973969

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Lung Neoplasms , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics
11.
Intern Emerg Med ; 17(8): 2229-2235, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1971816

ABSTRACT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Many communities remain under the 80% CRC screening goal. We aimed to identify factors associated with non-adherence to CRC screening and to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in CRC screening patterns. A retrospective review of patients aged 50-75 years seen at the Griffin Faculty Physicians primary care offices between January 2019 and December 2020 was performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence. Of 12,189 patients, 66.2% had an updated CRC screen. On univariable logistic regression, factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence included age ≤ 55 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.267, p < 0.001], White/Caucasian race (OR 0.858, p = 0.030), Medicaid insurance (OR 2.097, p < 0.001), morbid obesity (OR 1.436, p < 0.001), current cigarette smoking (OR 1.849, p < 0.001), and elevated HbA1c (OR 1.178, p = 0.004). Age, Medicaid insurance, morbid obesity, current smoking, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% remained significant in the final multivariable model. Compared to 2019, there was an 18.2% decrease in the total number of CRC screening tests in 2020. The proportion of colonoscopy procedures was lower in 2020 compared to the proportion of colonoscopy procedures conducted in 2019 (65.9% vs 81.7%, p < 0.001), with a concurrent increase in stool-based tests. CRC screening rates in our population are comparable to national statistics but below the 80% goal. COVID-19 affected CRC screening. Our results underscore the need to identify patient groups most vulnerable to missing CRC screening and highlight the importance of stool-based testing to bridge screening gaps.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Obesity, Morbid , United States , Humans , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Connecticut/epidemiology , Glycated Hemoglobin A , Pandemics , Occult Blood , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods
12.
Ginekol Pol ; 92(2): 165-173, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1964413

ABSTRACT

The Polish Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathophysiology (PTKiPSM) together with the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (PTGiP) issued a final summary of interim guidelines for secondary cervical cancer prevention during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic based on the analysis of the latest directional publications and the authors' own experiences. The aim of the summary is to facilitate the implementation of the most effective possible screening of cervical precancerous lesions and cervical cancer due to temporary significant limitation of screening as a consequence of the ongoing epidemiological threat. These final guidelines are taking into account the 2020 call of the World Health Organization (WHO) for global epidemiological elimination of cervical cancer. The guidelines supplement the interim guidelines of PTKiPSM and PTGiP announced in March 2020 on the possible deferral of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in patients with abnormal screening tests results in secondary prevention of cervical cancer in current pandemic.


Subject(s)
Colposcopy , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Secondary Prevention , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Algorithms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Poland , Precancerous Conditions/diagnosis , Precancerous Conditions/prevention & control , Precancerous Conditions/surgery , SARS-CoV-2 , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/surgery
13.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264929, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness who live in congregate shelters are at high risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission and severe COVID-19. Current screening and response protocols using rRT-PCR in homeless shelters are expensive, require specialized staff and have delays in returning results and implementing responses. METHODS: We piloted a program to offer frequent, rapid antigen-based tests (BinaxNOW) to residents and staff of congregate-living shelters in San Francisco, California, from January 15th to February 19th, 2021. We used the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation. RESULTS: Reach: We offered testing at ten of twelve eligible shelters. Shelter residents and staff had variable participation across shelters; approximately half of eligible individuals tested at least once; few tested consistently during the study. Effectiveness: 2.2% of participants tested positive. We identified three outbreaks, but none exceeded 5 cases. All BinaxNOW-positive participants were isolated or left the shelters. Adoption: We offered testing to all eligible participants within weeks of the project's initiation. Implementation: Adaptations made to increase reach and improve consistency were promptly implemented. Maintenance: San Francisco Department of Public Health expanded and maintained testing with minimal support after the end of the pilot. CONCLUSION: Rapid and frequent antigen testing for SARS-CoV2 in homeless shelters is a viable alternative to rRT-PCR testing that can lead to immediate isolation of infectious individuals. Using the RE-AIM framework, we evaluated and adapted interventions to enable the expansion and maintenance of protocols.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Homeless Persons/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Testing/methods , California , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Housing , Humans , Immunologic Tests/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Pilot Projects , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , San Francisco
14.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 11854, 2022 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931481

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 has severely affected economies and health systems around the world. Mass testing could work as a powerful alternative to restrain disease dissemination, but the shortage of reagents is a limiting factor. A solution to optimize test usage relies on 'grouping' or 'pooling' strategies, which combine a set of individuals in a single reaction. To compare different group testing configurations, we developed the poolingr package, which performs an innovative hybrid in silico/in vitro approach to search for optimal testing configurations. We used 6759 viral load values, observed in 2389 positive individuals, to simulate a wide range of scenarios. We found that larger groups (>100) framed into multi-stage setups (up to six stages) could largely boost the power to detect spreaders. Although the boost was dependent on the disease prevalence, our method could point to cheaper grouping schemes to better mitigate COVID-19 dissemination through identification and quarantine recommendation for positive individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods
15.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0268749, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1933289

ABSTRACT

Local information is needed to guide targeted interventions for respiratory infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Case notification rates (CNRs) are readily available, but systematically underestimate true disease burden in neighbourhoods with high diagnostic access barriers. We explored a novel approach, adjusting CNRs for under-notification (P:N ratio) using neighbourhood-level predictors of TB prevalence-to-notification ratios. We analysed data from 1) a citywide routine TB surveillance system including geolocation, confirmatory mycobacteriology, and clinical and demographic characteristics of all registering TB patients in Blantyre, Malawi during 2015-19, and 2) an adult TB prevalence survey done in 2019. In the prevalence survey, consenting adults from randomly selected households in 72 neighbourhoods had symptom-plus-chest X-ray screening, confirmed with sputum smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/Rif and culture. Bayesian multilevel models were used to estimate adjusted neighbourhood prevalence-to-notification ratios, based on summarised posterior draws from fitted adult bacteriologically-confirmed TB CNRs and prevalence. From 2015-19, adult bacteriologically-confirmed CNRs were 131 (479/371,834), 134 (539/415,226), 114 (519/463,707), 56 (283/517,860) and 46 (258/578,377) per 100,000 adults per annum, and 2019 bacteriologically-confirmed prevalence was 215 (29/13,490) per 100,000 adults. Lower educational achievement by household head and neighbourhood distance to TB clinic was negatively associated with CNRs. The mean neighbourhood P:N ratio was 4.49 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.98-11.91), consistent with underdiagnosis of TB, and was most pronounced in informal peri-urban neighbourhoods. Here we have demonstrated a method for the identification of neighbourhoods with high levels of under-diagnosis of TB without the requirement for a prevalence survey; this is important since prevalence surveys are expensive and logistically challenging. If confirmed, this approach may support more efficient and effective targeting of intensified TB and HIV case-finding interventions aiming to accelerate elimination of urban TB.


Subject(s)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Tuberculosis , Adult , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Malawi/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods , Prevalence , Sputum/microbiology , Tuberculosis/complications , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Tuberculosis/epidemiology
16.
Cancer Epidemiol ; 79: 102174, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1930784

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A Government-subsidised colorectal cancer screening programme (CRCSP) was launched in Hong Kong. This study aimed to assess the participation rate in CRCSP among Chinese individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years and to survey individuals' reasons for declining to participate in the CRCSP. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed. Asymptomatic Chinese individuals aged 50-75 years in Hong Kong who did not have a history of colorectal cancer were recruited. A survey was used to collect information about individuals' participation in the CRCSP. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1317 participants. Of these, 432 (32.8%) joined the CRCSP and the remaining 885 participants (67.2%) did not join the CRCSP. The most common reason that participants provided for not joining the CRCSP was thinking that the screening was not necessary because they had no health problems (29.3%). Some (14.4%) of the participants claimed to lack information about the CRCSP and screening procedures. Some (12.5%) of them completed the screening before the CRCSP was launched, and the cost was covered by other sources. CONCLUSION: The participation in CRCSP for a screening among the Hong Kong population has generally increased, but obstacles to participating in screening programme remain.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Occult Blood , Aged , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , Government , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged
17.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 34(7): 739-743, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1922401

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Procedural delays due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may exacerbate disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) preventive care. We aimed to measure racial and socioeconomic disparities in the prioritization of CRC screening or adenoma surveillance during the COVID reopening period. METHODS: We identified CRC screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed during two time periods: (1) 9 June 2019-30 September 2019 (pre-COVID) and (2) 9 June 2020-30 September 2020 (COVID reopening). We recorded the procedure indication, patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, insurance status and zip code. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors independently associated with undergoing colonoscopy in the COVID reopening era. RESULTS: We identified 1473 colonoscopies for CRC screening or adenoma surveillance; 890 occurred in the pre-COVID period and 583 occurred in the COVID reopening period. In total 342 (38.4%) pre-COVID patients underwent adenoma surveillance and 548 (61.6%) underwent CRC screening; in the COVID reopening cohort, 257 (44.1%) underwent adenoma surveillance and 326 (55.9%) underwent CRC screening (P = 0.031). This increased proportion of surveillance procedures in the reopening cohort was statistically significant on multivariable analysis [odds ratio (OR), 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.58]. Black patients comprised 17.4% of the pre-COVID cohort, which declined to 15.3% (P = 0.613). There was a trend toward an inverse association between reopening phase colonoscopy and Medicaid insurance compared with commercial insurance (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.04). No significant associations were found between reopening phase colonoscopy and the remaining variables. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID reopening period, colonoscopies for CRC fell by over one-third with significantly more surveillance than screening procedures. Nonwhite patients and non-English speakers comprised a shrinking proportion in the COVID reopening period.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Social Determinants of Health , United States/epidemiology
18.
Cancer Epidemiol ; 80: 102212, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased barriers to accessing preventive healthcare. This study identifies populations disproportionately underrepresented in screening and surveillance colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this single-center cohort study, colonoscopy procedures were reviewed during 6-month intervals before the pandemic (July 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 and January 1, 2021 - June 30, 2021). 7095 patients were categorized based on procedure indication, demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Statistics performed using VassarStats. RESULTS: 2387 (2019) colonoscopies pre-pandemic and 2585 (2020) and 2123 (2021) during the pandemic were identified. There was a decrease in colonoscopies performed during months when COVID-19 cases peaked. The total number of average CRC risk patients presenting for first colonoscopy declined during the pandemic: 232 (10 %) pre-pandemic to 190 (7 %) in 2020, 145 (7 %) in 2021 (p < 0.001). Fewer of these patients presented from highly vulnerable communities, SVI > 0.8, during the pandemic, 39 in 2019 vs 16 in 2020 and 22 in 2021. Of all screening and surveillance patients, fewer presented from communities with SVI > 0.8 during the pandemic, 106 in 2019 versus 67 in 2020 and 77 in 2021. CONCLUSION: It is important to address the decline in CRC preventive care during this pandemic among average CRC risk first-time screeners and vulnerable community patients. An emphasis on addressing social determinants of health and establishing patients in gastroenterology clinics is imperative to promote future health in these populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
19.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0270223, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910673

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program. DESIGN: We simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020-2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term. RESULTS: Increasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost). CONCLUSION: This modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child, Preschool , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Pandemics
20.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(8): 845-852, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1907320

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection in pregnancy ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe disease. However, the maternal and pregnancy outcomes are primarily favorable. Acute Respiratory Illness (ARI) score is a Visual Triage Checklist for Acute Respiratory symptoms created by the ministry of health of Saudi Arabia 12 to screen the patient for acute respiratory infection with MERS-CoV. It has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify suspected cases and place patients in isolation precautions if the score is≥ 4. METHOD: This study is a cross-sectional study of all pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 in four medical centers located in four different cities in Saudi Arabia. The study period was from 1/3/2020 until 31/10/2020. Outcomes investigated were the prevalence of COVID infection in pregnant women at the time of delivery. Rate of asymptomatic disease, different maternal and pregnancy outcomes. Women were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups according to the ARI score. The two groups were compared in maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, the cohort was divided according to maternal age into two groups: women of advanced maternal age ≥ 35 years and younger. The two groups were compared in maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes RESULTS: During the study period, 9573 women gave birth at KAMCs, and 402 pregnant women were identified as COVID positive. Out of all COVID-positive women, only 394 women gave birth at KAMCs. The screening for COVID infection differed between the centers, but the testing was the same by the Nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab. In Riyadh, screening was based on ARI scoring at the beginning of the pandemic. Then, it became universal. In Jeddah, the screening was based on ARI scoring. Any woman who scored four or more was labeled as suspected, and she was tested. Finally, in Madinah and Dammam, the screening was universal throughout the study. The prevalence of COVID-19 infection among women who gave birth at KAMCs was 4.2% (402/9573). (CI 3.8-4.6%). At the time of diagnosis, most women (62%) were asymptomatic. The most common symptoms were cough and shortness of breath. Twenty-two women (5.5%) had Pneumonia, and five women (1.3%) needed admission to Intensive care units (ICU). One woman died due to respiratory failure. When pregnancy outcomes were compared between symptomatic and asymptomatic women, pregnancy in symptomatic women was more likely to be complicated by Abortion (6 versus 2% p-value 0.00), fetal death (3 versus 1.3%), and cesarean delivery (30.8 versus 22.4%, p-value 0.001). COVID-positive pregnant women of advanced maternal age (AMA) were more likely to be symptomatic, have Abortion (5 versus 1%, p-value 0.01), and have Preterm delivery (17 versus 11% p-value 0.01) than younger women. In addition, neonatal death was more common in AMA COVID-positive women than younger (4 versus 0%), regardless of COVID-related symptoms. CONCLUSION: Most of the COVID-infected pregnant women are asymptomatic. Therefore, the ARI scoring system does not help to triage patients. Symptomatic women, especially those older than 35, tend to have a higher maternal and pregnancy complication rate.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Pregnancy Outcome , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , Abortion, Spontaneous/etiology , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL