Changes in primary care visits for respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

Objectives: The majority of patients with respiratory illness are seen in primary care settings. Given COVID-19 is predominantly a respiratory illness, the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), assessed the pandemic impact on primary care visits for respiratory illnesses. Design: Definitions for respiratory illness types were agreed on collectively. Monthly visit counts with diagnosis were shared centrally for analysis. Setting: Primary care settings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden and the United States. Participants: Over 38 million patients seen in primary care settings in INTRePID countries before and during the pandemic, from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Main outcome measures: Relative change in the monthly mean number of visits before and after the onset of the pandemic for acute infectious respiratory disease visits including influenza, upper and lower respiratory tract infections and chronic respiratory disease visits including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory allergies, and other respiratory diseases. Results: INTRePID countries reported a marked decrease in the average monthly visits for respiratory illness. Changes in visits varied from -10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): -33.1 to +11.3%] in Norway to -79.9% (95% CI: -86.4% to -73.4%) in China for acute infectious respiratory disease visits and - 2.1% (95% CI: -12.1 to +7.8%) in Peru to -59.9% (95% CI: -68.6% to -51.3%) in China for chronic respiratory illness visits. While seasonal variation in allergic respiratory illness continued during the pandemic, there was essentially no spike in influenza illness during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care visits for respiratory presentations. Primary care continued to provide services for respiratory illness, although there was a decrease in infectious illness during the COVID pandemic. Understanding the role of primary care may provide valuable information for COVID-19 recovery efforts and planning for future global emergencies.

An Exploratory Study of Physician Decision-Making When Treating Uncontrolled COPD.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend triple therapy maintenance inhalers for patients with recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, these maintenance therapies are underutilized. This study aimed to understand how physicians make COPD treatment decisions, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating, non-interventional study used a cross-sectional online survey that was administered to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five fictitious vignettes detailing common symptoms experienced by patients with COPD. Survey questions included factors physicians consider in their decisions, and perceived barriers to prescribing treatments. Repeated measures multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate how likely physicians were to switch to triple therapy versus no change to patient's current maintenance therapy or change to another maintenance therapy. Results: In total, 200 physicians completed the survey. Cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were reported as the most common barriers physicians consider in their prescribing decisions. Physicians were more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, insurance status, and clinical guidelines in their decision. Physicians with more experience treating patients with COPD, and those who treat more patients with COPD per week, were more likely to switch to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of factors that can influence physicians' decisions when prescribing treatments for patients with COPD, including considerations of treatment cost, patient access and adherence, patient comorbidities, efficacy of current treatment, clinical guidelines, and provider's level of experience treating COPD. Further research may help elucidate the relative importance of the factors influencing physicians' decisions and inform what types of decision-support tools would be most beneficial.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms can be effectively managed with maintenance therapies, which are treatments that are taken routinely to help improve symptoms. A combination of three different therapies (triple therapy maintenance) has been shown to be more effective than a combination of two different therapies (dual therapy maintenance) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, maintenance therapies, including triple therapy, are underutilized. This study aimed to explore how physicians make their treatment decisions for patients with COPD, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized. To do so, we administered a survey to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five clinically based, fictitious profiles, or vignettes, of patients with COPD, with common symptoms and patient characteristics being described. Physicians were then asked to answer questions about what treatment they would prescribe for each patient, and any factors they considered when deciding on a treatment for a patient. We found that cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were the most common barriers that physicians considered when choosing a treatment. Physicians were also more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to a triple therapy maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, patient's insurance status, and clinical guidelines when making their decisions. Our study shows that there are many complex factors that influence physicians' decisions when deciding on a treatment for patients with COPD.

Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits. DESIGN: An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents. POPULATION: Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA. METHODS: Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

Preference for and impact of telehealth vs in-person asthma visits among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx adults experience disproportionate asthma-related morbidity and limited specialty care access. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic expanded telehealth use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate visit type (telehealth [TH] vs in-person [IP]) preferences and the impact of visit type on asthma outcomes among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: For this PREPARE trial ancillary study, visit type preference was surveyed by e-mail or telephone post-trial. Emergency medical record data on visit types and asthma outcomes were available for a subset (March 2020 to April 2021). Characteristics associated with visit type preferences, and relationships between visit type and asthma outcomes (control [Asthma Control Test] and asthma-related quality of life [Asthma Symptom Utility Index]), were tested using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 866 participants consented to be surveyed, with 847 respondents. Among the participants with asthma care experience with both visit types, 42.0% preferred TH for regular checkups, which associated with employment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.39; P = .02), lower asthma medication adherence (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03), and having more historical emergency department and urgent care asthma visits (OR = 1.10 for each additional visit; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .02), after adjustment. Emergency medical record data were available for 98 participants (62 TH, 36 IP). Those with TH visits were more likely Latinx, from the Southwest, employed, using inhaled corticosteroid-only controller therapy, with lower body mass index, and lower self-reported asthma medication adherence vs those with IP visits only. Both groups had comparable Asthma Control Test (18.4 vs 18.9, P = .52) and Asthma Symptom Utility Index (0.79 vs 0.84, P = .16) scores after adjustment. CONCLUSION: TH may be similarly efficacious as and often preferred over IP among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, especially for regular checkups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02995733.

Outcomes of A Virtual Practice-Tailored Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Interventions are needed to promote utilization of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), an underused opportunity to perform screenings and plan individualized preventive health services. METHOD: Using remote practice redesign and electronic health record (EHR) support, we implemented the Practice-Tailored AWV intervention in 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in 3 small community-based practices. The intervention combines EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches and resources. Outcomes included completion of AWV and fulfillment of recommended preventive services. RESULTS: At baseline the 3 practices had 1,513 Medicare patients with at least 1 visit in the past 12 months. AWV utilization went from 7% at baseline to 54% 8 months postintervention implementation; advance care planning increased 10.7% (from 7.9% to 18.6%); depression screening increased 16.3% (from 51.7% to 68.0%); and alcohol misuse screening increased 17.3% (from 42.6% to 59.9%). Every individual preventive health service was received more often by patients with an AWV than those without. At the patient level, fulfillment of all eligible preventive services (of a maximum of 12 evaluated) went from 47.5% to 53.8% (P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with AWVs completed a greater percentage of their total recommended preventive health services than those without an AWV. CONCLUSION: Virtual implementation of an intervention that combined EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches increased AWV and preventive services utilization in Medicare patients. Given the success of this intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (when practices had many competing demands), greater consideration should be given to delivering future interventions virtually.

COPD Population in US Primary Care: Data From the Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database and the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry.

PURPOSE: To describe demographic and clinical characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients managed in US primary care. METHODS: This was an observational registry study using data from the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database from which the Advancing the Patient Experience COPD registry is derived. Registry patients were aged ≥35 years at diagnosis. Electronic health record data were collected from both registries, supplemented with patient-reported information/outcomes from the Advancing the Patient Experience registry from 5 primary care groups in Texas, Ohio, Colorado, New York, and North Carolina (June 2019 through November 2020). RESULTS: Of 17,192 patients included, 1,354 were also in the Advancing the Patient Experience registry. Patients were predominantly female (56%; 9,689/17,192), White (64%; 9,732/15,225), current/ex-smokers (80%; 13,784/17,192), and overweight/obese (69%; 11,628/16,849). The most commonly prescribed maintenance treatments were inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting ß2-agonist (30%) and inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (27%). Although 3% (565/17,192) of patitents were untreated, 9% (1,587/17,192) were on short-acting bronchodilator monotherapy, and 4% (756/17,192) were on inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. Despite treatment, 38% (6,579/17,192) of patients experienced 1 or more exacerbations in the last 12 months. These findings were mirrored in the Advancing Patient Experience registry with many patients reporting high or very high impact of disease on their health (43%; 580/1,322), a breathlessness score 2 or more (45%; 588/1,315), and 1 or more exacerbation in the last 12 months (50%; 646/1,294). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the high exacerbation, symptom, and treatment burdens experienced by COPD patients managed in US primary care, and the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to support decision making at the primary care level.

Changes in primary care visits arising from the COVID-19 pandemic: an international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

INTRODUCTION: Through the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), we compared the pandemic impact on the volume of primary care visits and uptake of virtual care in Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Visit definitions were agreed on centrally, implemented locally across the various settings in INTRePID countries, and weekly visit counts were shared centrally for analysis. We evaluated the weekly rate of primary care physician visits during 2019 and 2020. Rate ratios (RRs) of total weekly visit volume and the proportion of weekly visits that were virtual in the pandemic period in 2020 compared with the same prepandemic period in 2019 were calculated. RESULTS: In 2019 and 2020, there were 80 889 386 primary care physician visits across INTRePID. During the pandemic, average weekly visit volume dropped in China, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA but was stable overall in Australia (RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.05, p=0.59)), Canada (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, p=0.24)), Norway (RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.17, p=0.85)), Sweden (RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.06, p=0.22)) and the UK (RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03, p=0.11)). In countries that had negligible virtual care prepandemic, the proportion of visits that were virtual were highest in Canada (77.0%) and Australia (41.8%). In Norway (RR 8.23 (95% CI 5.30 to 12.78, p<0.001), the UK (RR 2.36 (95% CI 2.24 to 2.50, p<0.001)) and Sweden (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.50, p<0.001)) where virtual visits existed prepandemic, it increased significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The drop in primary care in-person visits during the pandemic was a global phenomenon across INTRePID countries. In several countries, primary care shifted to virtual visits mitigating the drop in in-person visits.

Socioeconomic status associates with worse asthma morbidity among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma disproportionately affects African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) patients and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES), but the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity within these racial/ethnic groups is inadequately understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults with moderate to severe asthma using multidomain SES frameworks and mediation analyses. METHODS: We analyzed enrollment data from the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief randomized trial, evaluating inhaled corticosteroid supplementation to rescue therapy. We tested for direct and indirect relationships between SES and asthma morbidity using structural equation models. For SES, we used a latent variable defined by poverty, education, and unemployment. For asthma morbidity, we used self-reported asthma exacerbations in the year before enrollment (corticosteroid bursts, emergency room/urgent care visits, or hospitalizations), and Asthma Control Test scores. We tested for mediation via health literacy, perceived stress, and self-reported discrimination. All models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 990 AA/B and H/L adults, low SES (latent variable) was directly associated with hospitalizations (ß = 0.24) and worse Asthma Control Test scores (ß = 0.20). Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and increased emergency room/urgent care visits and worse asthma control (ß = 0.03 and = 0.05, respectively). Individual SES domains were directly associated with asthma morbidity. Stress mediated indirect associations between low educational attainment and unemployment with worse asthma control (ß = 0.05 and = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lower SES is directly, and indirectly through stress, associated with asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults. Identification of stressors and relevant management strategies may lessen asthma-related morbidity among these populations.

Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 µg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 and willingness to be vaccinated in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults.

PURPOSE: To describe the socioeconomic and healthcare-related effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and willingness to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine, among African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma currently enrolled in a large trial. METHODS: The present analysis is a sub-study of the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) study, a pragmatic study of 1201 AA/B and H/L adults with asthma. A monthly questionnaire was completed by a subset of PREPARE participants (n = 325) during May-August, 2020. The 5-item questionnaire assessed self-reported impact of COVID-19 on respondents' ability to obtain asthma medications, medical care quality, employment, income and ability to pay bills; and willingness to get a free COVID-19 vaccine. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to investigate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Of 325 survey respondents (25% AA/B, 75% H/L), the majority reported no impact of COVID-19 on medical care or ability to get asthma medications. Approximately half of employed respondents experienced a lower level of employment or job loss, and approximately half reported having difficulty paying bills during the pandemic. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported unwillingness and 31% reported being somewhat likely to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine. AA/B race/ethnicity and poorer reported physical health were associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSION: AA/B and H/L adults with asthma may experience changes in the quality of their asthma care and increased socioeconomic stressors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and may be hesitant or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Longitudinal Association of a Medication Risk Score With Mortality Among Ambulatory Patients Acquired Through Electronic Health Record Data.

The use of electronic health records allows for the application of a novel medication risk score for the rapid identification of ambulatory patients at risk of adverse drug events. We sought to examine the longitudinal association of medication risk score with mortality. This retrospective cohort study included patients whose data were available through electronic health records from multiple health care organizations in the United States that provided data as part of a Patient Safety Organization. Patients were included if they had ≥1 visit and ≥1 medication in their record between January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2017. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association between continuous and categorized medication risk score with all-cause mortality. Among 427,103 patients, the median age was 50 years (interquartile range, 29-64 years); 61% were female; 50% were White, 11% were Black, and 38% were Hispanic; and 6873 had a death date recorded. Patients 30 to 49 years old had the highest hazard ratios (HRs), followed by the 50- to 64-year-olds and lastly those 65 years or older. Controlling for all covariates, 30- to 49-year-olds with a score of 20 to 30 (versus <10) had a 604% increase in the hazard of death (HR, 7.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.86-12.85), 50- to 64-year-olds had a 254% increase (HR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.71-4.63), and ≥65-year-olds had an 87% increase (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.67-2.09). The medication risk score was independently associated with death, adjusting for multimorbidities and other conditions. Risk was found to vary by age group and score. Results suggest that pharmaceutical interventions among those with elevated scores could improve medication safety for patients taking multiple medications.

Advancing the Patient EXperience (APEX) in COPD Registry: Study Design and Strengths.

The Advancing the Patient Experience (APEX) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) registry (https://www.apexcopd.org/) is the first primary care health system-based COPD registry in the United States. While its ultimate goal is to improve the care of patients diagnosed with COPD, the registry is also designed to describe real-life experiences of people with COPD, track key outcomes longitudinally, and assess the effectiveness of interventions. It will retrospectively and prospectively collect information from 3000 patients enrolled in 5 health care organizations. Information will be obtained from electronic health records, and from extended annual and brief questionnaires completed by patients before clinic visits. Core variables to be collected into the APEX COPD registry were agreed on by Delphi consensus and fall into 3 domains: demographics, COPD monitoring, and treatment. Main strengths of the registry include: 1) its size and scope (in terms of patient numbers, geographic spread and use of multiple information sources including patient-reported information); 2) collection of variables which are clinically relevant and practical to collect within primary care; 3) use of electronic data capture systems to ensure high-quality data and minimization of data-entry requirements; 4) inclusion of clinical, database development, management and communication experts; 5) regular sharing of key findings, both at international/national congresses and in peer-reviewed publications; and 6) a robust organizational structure to ensure continuance of the registry, and that research outputs are ethical, relevant and continue to bring value to both patients and physicians.

A randomized, open-label, pragmatic study to assess reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults with asthma: Design and methods of the PREPARE trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality disproportionately impact African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) communities. Adherence to daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), recommended by asthma guidelines in all but the mildest cases of asthma, is generally poor. As-needed ICS has shown promise as a patient-empowering asthma management strategy, but it has not been rigorously studied in AA/B or H/L patients or in a real-world setting. Design and Aim The PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) Study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic study which aims to assess whether a patient-guided, reliever-triggered ICS strategy called PARTICS (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled CorticoSteroid) can improve asthma outcomes in AA/B and H/L adult patient populations. In designing and implementing the study, the PREPARE research team has relied heavily on advice from AA/B and H/L Patient Partners and other stakeholders. Methods PREPARE is enrolling 1200 adult participants (600 AA/Bs, 600H/Ls) with asthma. Participants are randomized to PARTICS + Usual Care (intervention) versus Usual Care (control). Following a single in-person enrollment visit, participants complete monthly questionnaires for 15 months. The primary endpoint is annualized asthma exacerbation rate. Secondary endpoints include asthma control; preference-based quality of life; and days lost from work, school, or usual activities. Discussion The PREPARE study features a pragmatic design allowing for the real-world assessment of a patient-centered, reliever-triggered ICS strategy in AA/B and H/L patients. Outcomes of this study have the potential to offer powerful evidence supporting PARTICS as an effective asthma management strategy in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from asthma morbidity and mortality.

Feasibility, Implementation and Outcomes of Tablet-Based Two-Step Screening for Adult ADHD in Primary Care Practice.

Background: Primary care clinicians need to recognize and diagnose Adult ADHD (AADHD). We tested the feasibility and outcomes of a two-step screening process for AADHD in primary care. Methods: Seven practices screened patients using computerized surveys. Patients screening positive completed the AADHD Quality of Life (AAQoL). We explored the impact of screening on workflow and the acceptability to patients, and identified key barriers/opportunities to continuing screening. Results: Of the 711 participating adults, 188 (26.4%) screened positive, of which 32 (17.0%) had scores at least one standard deviation below means on two or more domains on the AAQoL (average 23.6 ± 7.3). These 32 individuals represented 4.5% of all participants. Clinicians were willing to screen, diagnose, and treat AADHD, but need additional resources. The screening process and technology was acceptable to patients and staff. Conclusions: A two-step screening method shows promise for routine screening for AADHD.

Development of the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly managed by family physicians, but little is known about specifics of management and how this may be improved. The Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD (APEX COPD) registry will be the first U.S. primary care, health system-based registry following patients diagnosed with COPD longitudinally, using a standardized set of variables to investigate how patients are managed in real life and assess outcomes of various management strategies. OBJECTIVE: Gaining expert consensus on a standardized list of variables to capture in the APEX COPD registry. METHODS: A modified, Delphi process was used to reach consensus on which data to collect in the registry from electronic health records (EHRs), patient-reported information (PRI) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO), and by physicians during subsequent office visits. The Delphi panel comprised 14 primary care and specialty COPD experts from the United States and internationally. The process consisted of 3 iterative rounds. Responses were collected electronically. RESULTS: Of the initial 195 variables considered, consensus was reached to include up to 115 EHR variables, 34 PRI/PRO variables and 5 office-visit variables in the APEX COPD registry. These should include information on symptom burden, diagnosis, COPD exacerbations, lung function, quality of life, comorbidities, smoking status/history, treatment specifics (including side effects), inhaler management, and patient education/self-management. CONCLUSION: COPD experts agreed upon the core variables to collect from EHR data and from patients to populate the APEX COPD registry. Data will eventually be integrated, standardized and stored in the APEX COPD database and used for approved COPD-related research.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

Persistent Hypertension in Children and Adolescents: A 6-Year Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the natural history of pediatric hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a 72-month retrospective cohort study among 165 primary care sites. Blood pressure measurements from two consecutive 36 month periods were compared. RESULTS: Among 398 079 primary care pediatric patients ages 3 to 18, 89 347 had ≥3 blood pressure levels recorded during a 36-month period, and 43 825 children had ≥3 blood pressure levels for 2 consecutive 36-month periods. Among these 43 825 children, 4.3% (1881) met criteria for hypertension (3.5% [1515] stage 1, 0.8% [366] stage 2) and 4.9% (2144) met criteria for elevated blood pressure in the first 36 months. During the second 36 months, 50% (933) of hypertensive patients had no abnormal blood pressure levels, 22% (406) had elevated blood pressure levels or <3 hypertensive blood pressure levels, and 29% (542) had ≥3 hypertensive blood pressure levels. Of 2144 patients with elevated blood pressure in the first 36 months, 70% (1492) had no abnormal blood pressure levels, 18% (378) had persistent elevated blood pressure levels, and 13% (274) developed hypertension in the second 36-months. Among the 7775 patients with abnormal blood pressure levels in the first 36-months, only 52% (4025) had ≥3 blood pressure levels recorded during the second 36-months. CONCLUSIONS: In a primary care cohort, most children initially meeting criteria for hypertension or elevated blood pressure had subsequent normal blood pressure levels or did not receive recommended follow-up measurements. These results highlight the need for more nuanced initial blood pressure assessment and systems to promote follow-up of abnormal results.