Rosedahl, Jordan K.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive tests for Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection have raised the prospect of broader nonreflux-based testing. Cost-effectiveness studies have largely studied men aged 50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. We evaluated the comparative cost effectiveness of BE screening tests in GERD-based and GERD-independent testing scenarios. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed in 3 scenarios in 50 years old individuals: (i) White men with chronic GERD (GERD-based); (ii) GERD-independent (all races, men and women), BE prevalence 1.6%; and (iii) GERD-independent, BE prevalence 5%. The simulation compared multiple screening strategies with no screening: sedated endoscopy (sEGD), transnasal endoscopy, swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. A hypothetical cohort of 500,000 individuals followed for 40 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was simulated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing each strategy with no screening and comparing screening strategies with each other were calculated. RESULTS: In both GERD-independent scenarios, most non-sEGD BE screening tests were cost effective. Swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers were cost effective (<$35,000/QALY) and were the optimal screening tests in all scenarios. Exhaled volatile organic compounds had the highest ICERs in all scenarios. ICERs were low (<$25,000/QALY) for all tests in the GERD-based scenario, and all non-sEGD tests dominated no screening. ICERs were sensitive to BE prevalence and test costs. DISCUSSION: Minimally invasive nonendoscopic tests may make GERD-independent BE screening cost effective. Participation rates for these strategies need to be studied.

Background The clinical outcomes of patients who decline anti-spike monoclonal antibody therapies for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is not known. Factors associated with the decision to accept or decline the offer for anti-spike monoclonal antibody therapies are not established. This study aimed to identify factors impacting the decision to consent for monoclonal antibody therapies and assess the differences in clinical outcomes of patients who accepted compared to those who declined these therapies. Methods This retrospective cohort study enrolled 2820 adult patients who were offered monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, for COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic in the Midwest between 11/19/2020 and 12/31/2020. The primary endpoint is the decision to accept or decline monoclonal antibody treatment. Secondary endpoints were patient-level factors that could have impacted the decision to accept treatment (age, gender, race, ethnicity, primary language spoken, and medical comorbidities). The main clinical endpoint was hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Results 59.1% (n = 1669) chose to accept monoclonal antibody therapy, and 40.9% (n = 1151) chose to decline the offer for treatment. Patients were more likely to accept treatment if they were non-Hispanic White, English speaking, identified a spouse or life partner, had a religious affiliation, and possessed more medical comorbidities. Overall, 28-day hospitalization rate was 2.6% (n = 72/2820) and was higher among those who declined (3.3%) than those who accepted monoclonal antibody therapy (2.0%; Rate Ratio = 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval, 0.39-0.98). Conclusions Despite having more comorbidities, patients who accepted monoclonal antibody treatments had a lower rate of hospitalization compared to patients who declined treatment. Several social and cultural factors were associated with the decision to decline therapy, including race, language, ethnicity, and lack of social support. These findings can inform public health efforts to reduce social disparities in the treatment of COVID-19 and increase utilization of monoclonal antibody therapies in high risk populations.

Introduction Telehealth service provision has accelerated during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As the pandemic continues, clinical practices have discovered ways to resume operations. Opportunities exist to understand patient preferences for telehealth clinical services and to tailor offerings to different demographic groups. Methods We conducted a survey of patients receiving telehealth services through our outpatient practice to understand the types of healthcare services for which patients report preferences for telehealth. Results We received 551 survey responses (response rate = 20.8%; 551/2650). More than half of patients indicated being ‘very likely’ to use telehealth services to refill medication(s) (67.3%), prepare for an upcoming visit (66.1%), review test results (60.3%), or receive education (54.2%). Males had lower odds of preferring telehealth services for reviewing test results (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34–0.94) or mental health issues (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.38–0.77). Respondents who received a video visit were significantly more likely than those who received a telephone visit to report preferences for using telehealth for education, care plan discussions, long-term health issues, and mental health. Discussion Patient preferences for telehealth services vary by services provided and respondent demographics. Experience with telehealth increases the likelihood for future use of these services.

Background: News articles, commentaries, and opinion articles have suggested that ongoing social distancing measures coupled with economic challenges during COVID-19 may worsen stress, affective state, and substance use across the globe. We sought to advance our understanding of the differences between individuals who change their substance use patterns during a public health crisis and those who do not. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of young adults (18–25 years of age) assessing respondent characteristics and vaping, tobacco, alcohol, and/or marijuana use. We calculated prevalence estimates, prevalence changes, and prevalence ratios with associated 95% confidence intervals and looked for differences with the chi-square test. Results: Of the total sample, 53.2% ( n = 542/1018) young adults reported vaping or using tobacco, alcohol, and/or marijuana. Among the 542 respondents reporting use, 34.3% reported a change in their use patterns. Among respondents reporting changes in substance use patterns during the pandemic ( n = 186), 68.8% reported an increase in alcohol use, 44.0% reported a decrease in vaping product use, and 47.3% reported a decrease in tobacco product use due to COVID-19. Substance use changed significantly for respondents with increasing degree of loneliness (continuous loneliness score: prevalence ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 1.01–1.25), anxiety (prevalence ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval = 1.14–1.85), and depression (prevalence ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval = 1.13–1.82). Conclusion: Self-reported substance use among young adults was observed to change during a pandemic, and the degree of loneliness appears to impact these changes. Innovative strategies are needed to address loneliness, anxiety, depression, and substance use during global health crises that impact social contact.

Background: Chronic illness is often comorbid with the psychological state of loneliness. Models of care for patients who experience chronic migraines may often lack an understanding of psychosocial influences of the illness. Addressing the effects of loneliness on the health behaviors of chronic migraine patients may further elucidate gaps in care that exist beyond the biomedical approach to migraine treatment. The primary aim of this study was to assess the relationship between loneliness and behavioral health decisions in chronic migraine patients, specifically patient ability to self-manage, and effectiveness of treatments. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients (n = 500) with migraine and assessed for the experience of loneliness by using the University of California, Los Angeles–Revised (UCLA-R) Three-item Loneliness Scale and the extent of migraine-related disability via the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). Furthermore, we evaluated patients for their ability to self-manage their migraines, and perceived effectiveness of treatment. Results: Nearly half of our population reported at least one measure of loneliness (230/500, 46.0%). Patients experiencing chronic migraine were statistically more likely to report feeling lonely when compared to patients with episodic migraines ( P < .001). Patients who report loneliness had lower odds of feeling ’very satisfied” with their ability to self-manage their migraine symptoms (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81) and had lower odds of feeling “very satisfied” with their ability to avoid conditions that cause their headache (aOR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.91). Conclusions: Loneliness has significant effects on the illness experience of patients with chronic migraines, including their ability to self-manage or be satisfied with their current state of care. Psychosocial models of care that address loneliness among patients with chronic migraine may help improve health outcomes and management.

Objective To inform migraine care model development by assessing differences between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in the current state of treatment, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality improvement opportunities. Background Efficient and focused use of scarce resources will be needed to address challenges within large populations of migraine patients. Methods We deployed a cross‐sectional survey study of randomly selected migraine patients within a community primary care practice. Results There were 516 survey respondents (516/1804 [30%] response rate). CM patients were more likely than EM patients to report care from a neurologist (76/110 [69%] vs 229/406 [56%]; P = .0026), and higher disability according to the Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test – 6 questionnaires ( P < .0001). CM patients were less likely than EM patients to report overall satisfaction with care (16/110 [38%] vs 156/406 [66%], P = .0002), satisfaction with access to care (17/110 [33%] vs 176/406 [68%], P < .0001), and advice they needed (16/110 [31%] vs 160/406 [62%], P < .0001). Most patients with migraine had been offered triptan medications 377/516 (78%). Overall, 156/516 (31%) of individuals were currently taking any medication for migraine prevention, and 208/516 (40%) including botulinum toxin injections. CM patients were more likely to be taking preventive medication (39/110 [36%] vs 117/406 [29%], P = .0191) and report familiarity with the diagnosis of medication‐overuse headache than patients with EM (80/110 [81%] vs 256/406 [69%], P = .0178). Conclusions We observed differences between patients with chronic and EM and expected care delivery improvement opportunities for migraine patients in primary care. CM patients report higher levels of disability and less satisfaction with access to perceived needed medical advice and care. These findings support the need to further develop and study novel care models to efficiently and effectively deliver high‐quality care and expertise in limited supply to a diverse migraine population.

ObjectivesIdentify predictors of high‐cost otolaryngology care.Study DesignCross‐sectional.SettingTertiary academic multispecialty hospital.Subjects/MethodsAll patients undergoing ≥1 otolaryngologic procedures from 2011 to 2015. Encounter costs were standardized using previously described methods approximating Medicare reimbursement. Patients were stratified by adult/pediatric and inpatient/outpatient. “Outliers” were defined as total encounter costs ≥95th percentile. Logistic regression measured predictors of outlier status.ResultsIn total, 2433 adult inpatient encounters (95th percentile $57,611), 10,031 adult outpatient encounters ($10,772), 346 pediatric inpatient encounters ($84,639), and 3027 pediatric outpatient encounters ($8978) were included. For adult inpatient and outpatient, isolated head and neck oncologic procedures were the reference group. Among adult inpatients, laryngology and facial plastics procedures predicted higher odds of outlier status (odds ratio [OR] = 4.1 and 7.2). Involvement of multiple otolaryngology subspecialties increased the odds (OR = 4.7). Neck dissection and reconstructive procedures were the most common primary operations for adult inpatient outliers. For adult outpatients, several subspecialties had lower odds than head and neck (OR ≤0.44). Increased comorbidities predicted outliers for adult inpatient care (OR = 1.5); sex, age, race, and ethnicity did not. Cochlear implant was the most common primary operation among adult and pediatric outpatient outliers. Greater subspecialty involvement and increasing age predicted pediatric outpatient outliers (OR = 8.0 and 1.1); younger age and female sex predicted pediatric inpatient outliers (OR = 0.8 and 3.5). Airway procedures dominated pediatric inpatient outliers.ConclusionThis is the first large‐scale study of high‐cost otolaryngology care across multiple subspecialties. Specific procedures and subspecialties and increased comorbidities predicted high‐cost care. Contrary to previous studies, patient sex, race, and ethnicity did not.