Use of latent class analysis and patient reported outcome measures to identify distinct long COVID phenotypes: A longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to 1) identify long COVID phenotypes based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 2) determine whether the phenotypes were associated with quality of life (QoL) and/or lung function. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients from March 2020 to January 2022 that was conducted across 4 Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in British Columbia, Canada. Latent class analysis was used to identify long COVID phenotypes using baseline PROMs (fatigue, dyspnea, cough, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder). We then explored the association between the phenotypes and QoL (using the EuroQoL 5 dimensions visual analogue scale [EQ5D VAS]) and lung function (using the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). RESULTS: There were 1,344 patients enrolled in the study (mean age 51 ±15 years; 780 [58%] were females; 769 (57%) were of a non-White race). Three distinct long COVID phenotypes were identified: Class 1) fatigue and dyspnea, Class 2) anxiety and depression, and Class 3) fatigue, dyspnea, anxiety, and depression. Class 3 had a significantly lower EQ5D VAS at 3 (50±19) and 6 months (54 ± 22) compared to Classes 1 and 2 (p<0.001). The EQ5D VAS significantly improved between 3 and 6 months for Class 1 (median difference of 6.0 [95% CI, 4.0 to 8.0]) and Class 3 (median difference of 5.0 [95% CI, 0 to 8.5]). There were no differences in DLCO between the classes. CONCLUSIONS: There were 3 distinct long COVID phenotypes with different outcomes in QoL between 3 and 6 months after symptom onset. These phenotypes suggest that long COVID is a heterogeneous condition with distinct subpopulations who may have different outcomes and warrant tailored therapeutic approaches.

Patient-reported distress at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are conducted by health systems to improve patient-centered care. Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic poses unique stressors for patients with cancer. This study investigates change in self-reported global health scores in patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, patients who completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) at a comprehensive cancer center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified. Surveys were analyzed to assess change in the global mental health (GMH) and global physical health (GPH) scores at different time periods (pre-COVID: 3/1/5/2019-3/15/2020, surge1: 6/17/2020-9/7/2020, valley1: 9/8/2020-11/16/2020, surge2: 11/17/2020-3/2/2021, and valley2: 3/3/2021-6/15/2021). A total of 25,192 surveys among 7209 patients were included in the study. Mean GMH score for patients before the COVID-19 pandemic (50.57) was similar to those during various periods during the pandemic: surge1 (48.82), valley1 (48.93), surge2 (48.68), valley2 (49.19). Mean GPH score was significantly higher pre-COVID (42.46) than during surge1 (36.88), valley1 (36.90), surge2 (37.33) and valley2 (37.14). During the pandemic, mean GMH (49.00) and GPH (37.37) scores obtained through in-person were similar to mean GMH (48.53) and GPH (36.94) scores obtained through telehealth. At this comprehensive cancer center, patients with cancer reported stable mental health and deteriorating physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic as indicated by the PROMIS survey. Modality of the survey (in-person versus telehealth) did not affect scores.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity.

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

Project Tooth Fairy: a pan-London initiative from conception to delivery to patient-reported experience measures.

Pressure on paediatric dental general anaesthetic (GA) waiting lists has recently been at its highest, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Project Tooth Fairy (PTF), a pan-London collaborative project, was conceived in response to this backlog. A dedicated day case GA suite was established within The Royal London Dental Hospital (Barts Health NHS Trust) for use by multiple trusts to enhance elective recovery.Over ten months, 895 patients were treated and discharged by PTF, averaging 101 patients per month. The majority required simple exodontia and comprehensive care and some patients were treated for surgery related to orthodontic treatment. Patient-reported experience measures highlighted an overall positive experience and appreciation for the service.Several governance domains were considered in the service development, including risk management, workforce recruitment and information governance. Training opportunities have arisen for team members to develop their skills. Patient-reported experience measures have guided the provision of service focusing on paediatric dentistry and paediatric GA.PTF has demonstrated the creation of a service centred around collaboration to successfully reduce GA waiting lists and therefore improving patient outcomes. The development of this service can be used as a template for the establishment of similar regional collaborative projects.

Bedside vs webside: Assessing patient-reported experiences for in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine has been identified as safe and feasible, data on patient reported experiences (PREs) are lacking. We sought to compare PREs between in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative care. METHODS: Patients evaluated from August-November 2021 were prospectively surveyed to assess experiences and satisfaction with care rendered during in-person and telemedicine-based encounters. Patient and hernia characteristics, encounter related plans, and PREs were compared between in-person and telemedicine-based care. RESULTS: Of 109 respondents (86% response rate), 55% (n = 60) utilized telemedicine-based perioperative care. Indirect costs were lower for patients using telemedicine-based services, including work absence (3% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), lost wages (0% vs. 14%, P = 0.003), and requirements for hotel accommodations (0% vs. 12%, P = 0.007). PREs related to telemedicine-based care were non-inferior to in-person care across all measured domains (P > 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine-based care yields significant cost-savings over in-person care with similar patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that systems should focus on optimization of perioperative telemedicine services.

A five-year (2017-2021) time series evaluation of patient-reported informal healthcare payments in Romania.

Low wages of health professionals are widely recognized as one of the drivers of informal payments in Romania's healthcare system. In January 2018, the government increased wages by an average of 70% to 172% in the public healthcare sector. This study examined the trends in patient-reported informal healthcare payments, discussing the effect of a one-time wage increase in 2018 and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. It draws on monthly survey data of patient-reported informal payments collected between January 2017 and December 2021. We analyzed three periods: before the wage rise ("low pay"), between the wage rise and the COVID-19 pandemic ("high pay"), and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that patient-reported informal payments decreased between the "low pay" and "high pay" period but with a sharper decline during the COVID-19 pandemic. The share of respondents willing to report informal payments increased during the "high pay" period, indicating a stronger willingness to voice dissatisfaction with health services and informal payments, but slowed down during the first lockdown in 2020. Informal payments were more frequently reported in larger hospitals and the poorest geographical areas. While the 2018 wage increase may have contributed to less prevalent informal payments, survey coverage and design must be improved to draw robust, system-level conclusions to inform tailored policy actions.

Patient reported outcomes in systemic vasculitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review paper evaluates the use of patient reported outcome (PROs) in systemic vasculitis and the increasing incorporation of these measures in the evaluation of clinical outcomes and healthcare provision. RECENT FINDINGS: Generic PROs such as the SF-12, SF-36, EQ-5D have been used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) across the spectrum of vasculitis; including giant cell arteritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-related vasculitis and immunoglobulin A vasculitis (IgA) vasculitis. More recently disease-specific PROs have been developed including the associated vasculitis (AAV)-PRO and GCA-PRO, whilst further work is ongoing including a Steroid-PRO. SUMMARY: Generic and disease-specific PROs are complimentary in nature, but the advent of disease-specific PROs allows evaluation of the impact of specific symptoms and intervention on patient HRQOL. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the advent of increasing virtual work has brought the potential for electronic-PRO measures to the forefront and is a current area of interest.

Use of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure: from clinical trials to routine practice.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome that affects mortality/morbidity and acts at different levels in the patient's life, resulting in a drastic impairment in multiple aspects of daily activities (e.g. physical, mental/emotional, and social) and leading to a reduction in quality of life. The definition of disease status and symptom severity has been traditionally based on the physician assessment, while the patient's experience of disease has been long overlooked. The active participation of patients in their own care is necessary to better understand the perception of disease and the multiple aspects of life affected, and to improve adherence to treatments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aim to switch traditional care to a more patient-centred approach. Although PROs demonstrated precision in the evaluation of disease status and have a good association with prognosis in several randomized controlled trials, their implementation into clinical practice is limited. This review discusses the modalities of use of PROs in HF, summarizes the most largely adopted PROs in HF care, and provides an overview on the application of PROs in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. By discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of their use, the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine, and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this review aims to foster the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.

Factor Analysis in Distinguishing Coronavirus Disease 2019 From Other Influenza-like Illness Using a Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument FLU-PRO Plus: A Prospective Real-world Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: InFLUenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO Plus) is a 34-item patient-reported outcome instrument designed to capture the intensity and frequency of viral respiratory symptoms. This study evaluates whether FLU-PRO Plus responses could discriminate between symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza-like illness (ILI) with no COVID diagnosis, as well as forecast disease progression. METHODS: FLU-PRO Plus was administered daily for 14 days. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the FLU-PRO Plus responses on the first day to 3 factors interpreted as "symptom clusters." The 3 clusters were used to predict COVID-19 versus ILI diagnosis in logistic regression. Correlation between the clusters and quality of life (QoL) measures was used to assess concurrent validity. The timing of self-reported return to usual health in the 14-day period was estimated as a function of the clusters within COVID-19 and ILI groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients completed day 1 FLU-PRO Plus, of which 65% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 symptom clusters: (1)general Body, (2) tracheal/bronchial, and (3) nasopharyngeal. Higher nasopharyngeal scores were associated with higher odds of COVID-19 compared with ILI diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio = 1.61 (1.21, 2.12)]. Higher tracheal/bronchial scores were associated with lower odds of COVID-19 [0.58 (0.44, 0.77)]. The 3 symptom clusters were correlated with multiple QoL measures ( r = 0.14-0.56). Higher scores on the general body and tracheal/bronchial symptom clusters were associated with prolonged time to return to usual health [adjusted hazard ratios: 0.76 (0.64, 0.91), 0.80 (0.67, 0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Three symptom clusters identified from FLU-PRO Plus responses successfully discriminated patients with COVID-19 from non-COVID ILI and were associated with QoL and predicted symptom duration.

Sex-related patient-reported brain fog symptoms in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies on the prognostic role of sex in post-COVID-associated brain fog have yielded divergent results. Moreover, limited evidence exists regarding the evolution of brain fog symptoms over time, especially in ambulatory patients and separately for women and men. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess brain fog symptoms in nonhospitalised patients with COVID-19, according to their sex. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We created a neuropsychological questionnaire including eight questions on the presence of brain fog symptoms in the following four time periods: before COVID-19, and 0-4, 4-12, and > 12 weeks post-infection. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed. In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were filled out anonymously and retrospectively once only by patients or through a survey link posted online. Included were patients ≥ 18 years, with > 3 months since the SARS-CoV-2 infection onset confirmed by RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS: The study included 303 patients (79.53% women, 47.52% medical personnel). Median time between COVID-19 onset and questionnaire completion was 208 (IQR 161-248) days. Women, compared to men, reported a higher prevalence of problems with writing, reading, and counting (< 4 weeks, OR 3.05, 95% CI: 1.38-6.72; 4-12 weeks, OR 2.51, 95% CI: 1.02-6.14; > 12 weeks, OR 3.74, 95% CI: 1.12-12.56) and thoughts communication (< 4 weeks, OR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.41-4.54; 4-12 weeks, OR 3.74, 95% CI: 1.93-7.24; > 12 weeks, OR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.01-3.99). The difference between the two sexes in answering questions in an understandable/unambiguous manner was statistically significant between four and 12 weeks after infection (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.36-5.10), while a sex difference in recalling new information was found below 12 weeks (OR 2.54, 95% CI: 1.44-4.48 and OR 2.43, 95% CI: 1.37-4.31 for < 4 and 4-12 weeks, respectively). No sex differences in reporting problems with multitasking, remembering information from the past, determining the current date, or field orientation were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Non-hospitalised women and men retrospectively report a different course of COVID-19-associated brain fog.