Averkamp, Natalie

This protocol paper details a single-center, randomized trial to compare greater occipital nerve blocks (GONBs) to multiple peripheral nerve blocks (MPNBs) for acute headache relief and prophylaxis in episodic migraine. GONBs are effective for the treatment and prevention of migraine, but a combination of trigeminal and occipital nerve blocks can be effective when GONBs alone have failed. To test this hypothesis, 60 adult participants will be randomized to receive either bilateral GONB or MPNBs of the bilateral greater occipital, lesser occipital, auriculotemporal, supraorbital, and supratrochlear nerves during an acute migraine with 0.5–1.25 mL bupivacaine 0.5%. Methylprednisolone 10–20 mg will be added only for the occipital nerves. Anesthesia in the distribution of each nerve block will be tested, and reinjection with bupivacaine will be performed until anesthesia is achieved. The primary endpoint will be pain freedom 20 min after injections. Secondary endpoints include pain freedom at 2 and 24 h, headache relief at 2 h, frequency and severity of subsequent migraine, and absenteeism from work/school/life events due to headaches over a 12-week follow-up period compared to a four-week run-in period. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04278573).

Introduction: Adult hepatitis B vaccination coverage in the United States remains low despite updated national recommendations supporting universal adult immunization. Many adults remain unaware of their susceptibility to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This quality improvement (QI) study evaluated a stepwise “Offer–Offer–Test–Vaccinate” workflow designed to improve hepatitis B vaccine uptake among vaccine-hesitant adults in a primary care setting. Methods: This retrospective QI study was conducted at a single primary care clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Adult patients (≥19 years) seen between October 1, 2022, and October 1, 2024, were routinely offered hepatitis B vaccination during rooming. Two participating physicians implemented an enhanced workflow in which patients who declined vaccination were counseled and then offered serologic screening using the 2023 CDC-recommended triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, and total anti-HBc). Patients with negative serology were notified via the patient portal and reoffered vaccination along with a link to the CDC Vaccine Information Statement. The primary endpoint was initiation of the hepatitis B vaccine series following receipt of negative serology results. Preliminary series-completion data through October 1, 2025, were also assessed. Results: Among 501 eligible adults, 104 (20.8%) accepted vaccination at the initial offer. Of the 397 who declined, 106 (26.7%) agreed to serologic testing; 91 (85.8%) were seronegative. Among seronegative patients, 41 (45.1%) subsequently accepted vaccination. Integrating serologic testing increased overall vaccination uptake from 20.8% to 28.9%, an absolute increase of 8.2 percentage points and a relative increase of 39.4%. Approximately 2.6 serologic tests were required to generate 1 additional first-dose vaccination. Preliminary series-completion rates were 74.0% among those vaccinated at the initial offer and 87.8% among those vaccinated following serologic testing. Discussion: In this primary care setting, incorporating serologic testing into the workflow was associated with modestly improved hepatitis B vaccination uptake among vaccine-hesitant adults. Serologic results may help re-engage patients by providing personalized immunity information. Implementation considerations include staffing needs, laboratory access, patient portal engagement, and insurance coverage. Conclusion: The “Offer–Offer–Test–Vaccinate” strategy was associated with a modest increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake among hesitant adults. This EMR-integrated, stepwise approach may offer a feasible and scalable strategy to reduce missed vaccination opportunities and support HBV prevention in adult primary care.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is essential to secondary cardiovascular disease prevention and management of cardiac patients. Despite its proven benefits, CR remains underutilized with enrollment and completion rates ranging from 10-30% in the US. Yet, there is a scarcity of nationally representative data among diverse populations on socioeconomic differences in barriers and beliefs of CR participation and delivery mode preferences. Hypothesis: The perceptions (barriers, beliefs), CR delivery mode preferences, and CR utilization (prior enrollment) varies by socioeconomic status (SES) among CR-eligible individuals. Methods: We conducted an anonymous national electronic survey from March 2023 to January 2024 of individuals self-reporting a prior CR-eligible diagnosis. The 22-item CR Barriers Scale assessed perceived barriers to CR enrollment and participation using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). A 13-item, validated questionnaire assessed 4 subscales pertaining to patients’ beliefs about CR, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree): perceived necessity, concerns about exercise, practical barriers and perceived suitability. CR delivery mode preferences were ascertained (eg, virtual, at-home, etc.). Mean barriers and belief scores as well as delivery mode preferences were stratified by SES. Low SES was defined as ≤ high school education, Medicaid insurance, or uninsured. High SES was defined as > high school education and non-Medicaid health insurance. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics with R software. Results: A total of 466 participants completed the survey (38.1% women, 30.6% minoritized racial/ethnic group, 29.6% low SES, 95% response rate) ( Table 1 ). The majority indicated prior enrollment in CR (81.5%) with no difference by SES. CR barrier scores did not differ significantly by SES (p=0.331) ( Table 2 ). Beliefs about CR perceived necessity and perceived suitability differed by SES (p<0.001 and p=0.025), but beliefs regarding concerns about exercise and practical barriers did not. The low SES group reported a higher preference for completely at-home CR compared to the high SES group (33.6% vs 7.4%, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that CR beliefs varied by SES while utilization did not. For CR-eligible patients experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, at-home CR may be a preferred alternative to center-based CR to increase CR participation and adherence.

Toxins from ingested water can significantly affect overall physical health in children and adults. In the United States, domestic water wells are not commonly tested for any heavy metal contaminants. It is well-known that chronic arsenic ingestion from water is linked to serious health effects. We surveyed patients at our academic institution via emailed questionnaires in 2023 to determine whether those with children living at home reported different patterns of behavior around well water testing as compared to those without. Survey data were collected from 8994 respondents in the U.S. Midwest who reported using residential well water. Results were used to evaluate the influence of children in the home on testing behaviors, and secondarily, whether parental demographics affected testing frequency. Respondents with children at home did not report increased testing frequency compared to those without. In parents who did report testing, having more children, being younger, and living in Wisconsin were associated with an increased frequency. Parental gender, race, and ethnicity did not correlate with testing behaviors. A total of 70% of respondents did not feel concerned about their water safety and 85% were not concerned about arsenic specifically in their water. Increased risk of toxicity to children from arsenic does not appear to influence reported well water testing behavior among parents.