Tulledge-Scheitel, Sidna M

Abstract The effectiveness of bebtelovimab in real-world settings has not been assessed. In this retrospective cohort study of 3607 high-risk patients, bebtelovimab was used more commonly than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and those with multiple comorbid conditions. Despite its use in patients with multiple comorbid conditions, the rate of progression to severe disease after bebtelovimab (1.4% [95% confidence interval, 1.2%–1.7%]) was not significantly different from that for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (1.2% [.8%–1.5%]). Our findings support the emergency use authorization of bebtelovimab for treatment of COVID-19 during the Omicron epoch dominated by BA.2 and subvariants.

Abstract In a cohort of 483 high-risk patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19, 2 patients (0.4%) required hospitalization by day 30. Four patients (0.8%) experienced rebound of symptoms, which were generally mild, at a median of 9 days after treatment, and all resolved without additional COVID-19–directed therapy.

Abstract Background Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. Methods Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. Results The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9–2.2] and 1.6 [.8–2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. Conclusions This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

Objective: Much has been written about the patients’ perspective concerning weight management in health care. The purpose of this survey study was to assess perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses toward patient weight management and identify possible areas of growth. Patients and Methods: We emailed a weight management–focused survey to 674 eligible participants (437 [64.8%] nurses and 237 [35.2%] PCPs) located in 5 outpatient primary care clinics. The survey focused on opportunities, practices, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and beliefs. A total of 219 surveys were returned (137 [62.6%] from nurses and 82 [34.4%] from PCPs). Results: Among 219 responders, 85.8% were female and 93.6% were white non-Hispanic. In this study, PCPs and nurses believed obesity to be a major health problem. While PCPs felt more equipped than nurses to address weight management ( P < .001) and reported receiving more training than nurses (50.0% vs 17.6%, respectively), both felt the need for more training on obesity (73.8% and 79.4%, respectively). Although, PCPs also spent more patient contact time providing weight management services versus nurses ( P < .001), the opportunity/practices score was lower for PCPs than nurses (−0.35 ± 0.44 vs −0.17 ± 0.41, P < .001) with PCPs more likely to say they lacked the time to discuss weight and they worried it would cause a poor patient-PCP relationship. The knowledge/confidence score also differed significantly between the groups, with nurses feeling less equipped to deal with weight management issues than PCPs (−0.42 ± 0.43 vs −0.03 ± 0.55, P < .001). Neither group seemed very confident, with those in the PCP group only answering with an average score of neutral. Conclusion: By asking nurses and PCP general questions about experiences, attitudes, knowledge, and opinions concerning weight management in clinical care, this survey has identified areas for growth in obesity management. Both PCPs and nurses would benefit from additional educational training on weight management.

ObjectivesPerformance measurement is used by health care providers, payers, and patients. Historically accomplished using administrative data, registries are used increasingly to track and improve care. We assess how measured diabetes care quality differs when calculated using claims versus registry.Data Sources/Study SettingCross‐sectional analysis of administrative claims and electronic health records (EHRs) of patients in a multispecialty integrated health system in 2012 (n = 368,883).Study DesignWe calculated percent of patients attaining glycohemoglobin <8.0 percent, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL, blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, and nonsmoking (D4) in cohorts, identified by Medicare Accountable Care Organization/Minnesota Community Measures (ACO‐MNCM; claims‐based), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS; claims‐based), and registry (EHR‐based).Data Collection/Extraction MethodsClaims were linked to EHR to create a dataset of performance‐eligible patients.Principal FindingsACO‐MNCM, HEDIS, and registry identified 6,475, 6,989, and 6,425 measurement‐eligible patients. Half were common among the methods; discrepancies were due to attribution, age restriction, and encounter requirements. D4 attainment was lower in ACO‐MNCM (36.09 percent) and HEDIS (37.51 percent) compared to registry (43.74 percent) cohorts.ConclusionsRegistry‐ and claims‐based performance measurement methods identify different patients, resulting in different rates of quality metric attainment with implications for innovative population health management.