Declining trends in telehealth utilization in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth is an important complement to in-person healthcare, with opportunities to overcome barriers to healthcare and improve health equity. Telehealth utilization increased sharply at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assessed trends in telehealth utilization for the years 2020 through 2022, both overall and in subgroups. METHODS: We gathered data from the 2020-2022 National Health Interview Survey. The rates of telehealth utilization were calculated overall and within subgroups based on demographic factors, health conditions, healthcare utilization, challenges of ability, and social needs. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression models of telehealth utilization assessed the yearly trends. We also analyzed the ratios of subgroup utilization relative to the overall rates. RESULTS: A total of 69,581 patients were identified with complete information. The overall rates of telehealth utilization were 36.2% for 2020, 38.9% for 2021, and 31.3% for 2022. The reduction in telehealth utilization for 2022 was large and statistically significant (OR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.62-0.67), p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed corresponding reductions in 2022 for essentially all patient subgroups. Telehealth was utilized at higher rates by patients with chronic conditions, challenges of ability, and other kinds of medical utilization. Ratio analyses showed evidence of widening disparities for patients of older age, in rural areas, and by geographic region, limited education, and of low income. DISCUSSION: The study demonstrates declining rates of telehealth utilization are occurring with widening gaps among patient subgroups. Addressing these disparities may be critical to improving equity in telehealth and healthcare overall.

Perspectives on how to build bridges between regulation, health technology assessment and clinical guideline development: a qualitative focus group study with European experts.

OBJECTIVE: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved. DESIGN: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups. SETTING: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion. RESULTS: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts. CONCLUSION: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.

Suspected adverse reactions reported for blood, blood components, and blood products in VigiBase.

INTRODUCTION: Since being designated as medicines by World Health Organization (WHO), blood components are subject to pharmacovigilance reporting. Using VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs), we characterized reports of adverse reactions for all blood products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: ICSRs involving blood products as the suspected medicine in VigiBase between 1968 and 2021 were extracted. MedDRA preferred terms and the International Society of Blood Transfusion haemovigilance definitions were used to stratify adverse reactions. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize ICSR demographics. RESULTS: A total of 111,033 ICSRs containing 577,577 suspected adverse reactions with 6152 MedDRA preferred terms were reported for 34 blood products. There were 12,153 (10.9%) reports for blood components, 98,135 (88.4%) reports for plasma-derived medicines, and 745 (0.7%) reports for recombinant products. The majority of reports (21.0% and 19.7%, respectively) were from patients aged 45-64 and over 65 years. The Americas contributed the most ICSRs (49.7%). Top reported suspected adverse reactions were for the following MedDRA preferred terms: headache (3.5%), pyrexia (2.8%), chills (2.8%), dyspnoea (1.8%), and nausea (1.8%). CONCLUSION: VigiBase already has a large number of reports on blood products. When compared to other existing haemovigilance databases, our study found reports from a broader range of countries and reporters. This may provide us with new perspectives, but for VigiBase to reach its full potential in haemovigilance some alterations in what is captured in reports are required.