Citations

Abstract Rationale American Indians and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people have the highest prevalence of tobacco use of any US racial or ethnic minoritized group, though this varies regionally. Smoking, and smoking-related cancers including lung cancer are more common in AI/AN people than non-Hispanic whites in the Pacific Northwest. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective but broadly under-utilized in AI/AN eligible adults. This study’s objective was to evaluate a AI/AN community co-designed patient navigation intervention to bridge community healthcare settings to a LDCT-capable LCS program. Methods We conducted a single-arm pilot study of the patient navigation intervention, grounded in community-based participatory research principles. The intervention was formalized in a living handbook, co-created with input from patients and providers at an AI/AN Urban Indian Organization and primary care clinic, Seattle Indian Health Board. Two community health workers served as navigators to deliver culturally sensitive support, link to shared decision-making with a nurse practitioner at the academic LCS program, coordinate transportation, interface with insurance and provide other barrier-directed activities. Patients eligible for LCS (n = 44) were recruited from the AI/AN clinic setting through on-site outreach. Enrolled participants completed pre-navigation surveys which assessed baseline knowledge, attitudes, experiences and barriers. Those who engaged with the central program completed an additional post-navigation survey (n = 15). Electronic health records were reviewed for all navigation and LCS-related data. Results Between July 2023 - November 2024, 44 participants were enrolled in the study. The median age of the participants was 65 (IQR 58-70), 66% reported current smoking, and 76% reported an annual household income <$30,000. All participants reported at least one barrier that delayed care in the past 12 months. On review, two participants were up-to-date on LCS prior to enrollment. Within 6 months, 13 participants completed a shared decision-making appointment and 11 went forward with LDCT. On post-intervention surveys, barriers most commonly addressed were: scheduling (100%), transportation (80%), explaining LCS (80%) and cost/insurance (73%). Participants reported high acceptability, measured by Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM median 5.0, IQR 5-5) and patient satisfaction measured by Patient Navigation Satisfaction Measured-Instrument (PNS-I median 45, IQR 42-45). Conclusion A culturally tailored patient navigation program for LCS was feasible and highly acceptable among urban AI/AN adults. Navigation addressed multiple barriers and successfully connected some patient participants from a community clinic to tertiary screening centers for shared decision-making and/or screening. These findings support the effectiveness of academic-community partnered navigation to increase LCS uptake in AI/AN clinic settings. This abstract is funded by: ATS/ALA/Chest Foundation: Respiratory Health Equity Research Award (Triplette)

Abstract Introduction: Over 90% of adolescents (18-24 years) have a social media account. In 2021, an estimated 18.3% of 18-24-year-olds used electronic cigarettes. This age group is more likely to use social media as a health information resource than other sources. The social media platform TikTok is the fastest growing platform among adolescents. There is growing interest in vaping cessation among adolescents, and vaping cessation posts have grown accordingly. Our hypothesis is there are diverse vaping cessation methods described by TikTok users important for clinicians to understand. The use of qualitative methods informed by netnography represents an ideal way to evaluate TikTok videos. Methods: TikTok videos describing at least one vaping cessation method posted in English uploaded after January 1, 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Any post associated with advertising, sponsorship, corporations, or retail entities were excluded. Reposts of any kind were excluded. A total of 200 videos were reviewed in duplicate for eligibility. NVivo Version 14 transcription cloud and coding software was used. Coding was conducted independently by the study team until thematic saturation was reached. This study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board as social media data is public domain and no identifiers were collected. Results: A total of 52 videos were included. Included videos had an average of 2.4 million views, 285,000 likes, and 11,000 shares. There were a wide variety of vaping cessation methods described. Some methods, such as hand motions mimicking vaping, limiting exposures, and use of nicotine replacement are supported by cigarette smoking cessation literature. There were also numerous videos outlining methods known to be ineffective or harmful, including instructions to vape continuously until illness occurs, and utilizing negative self-affirmations to “scold” yourself when using electronic cigarettes. Themes of inner strength, motivations, and shame were also discussed, and multiple users described their “wake up call” to quit vaping. Conclusions: Social media platforms are growing in popularity with adolescents and individuals under age 18. The inability for users to discriminate between evidence-based health advice and anecdotal experiences represents a key issue for clinicians to be aware of when counseling patients. Given the age demographics of social media users, this issue will grow as the population ages. Clinicians should engage in conversations with their patients about sources of reputable health information, and future directions may include novel methods such as partnering with influencers or social media companies.

Abstract RATIONALE: Community engagement is critical in the conduct of research seeking to address healthcare disparities. Indigenous peoples (American Indians and Alaskan Natives) have the highest prevalence of cigarette smoking and commercial tobacco use among all racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Including Indigenous people as partners in the research process is critical for moving interventions to improve health forward. Engagement in the research process should be considerate of the time, travel, and ease of use for research participants and advisors. Based on feedback from community members, we launched social media pages with deidentified study updates for past participants and any interested community members to receive updates on a prospective mixed methods study designed to inform a pilot smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: Facebook and Instagram were the social media platforms identified for this study. Prior themes identified from the principal investigator's previous work and results of current study informed the development of posts. Institutional Review Board approval was granted for this community engagement method. There were no recruitment activities conducted on these pages, and all information was presented in a deidentified, thematic fashion to protect research participants. There were two social media moderators monitoring interaction with social media pages. An Indigenous artist created accompanying images to enhance engagement with posts. The content covered discussions on smoking cessation identified from the primary study along with profiles highlighting team members and allies. Posts were made at non-fixed, variable intervals from May to September 2024, and were checked bi-weekly to ensure respectful conduct. RESULTS: Between May and September 2024, ten posts were shared, including three highlighting Indigenous team members and allies and seven focused on smoking cessation discussions. Instagram had more engagement when compared to Facebook. Posts that featured Indigenous team members and allies received higher interaction when compared to those on smoking cessation alone, contributing to Instagram's overall success. CONCLUSION: Instagram was the more effective platform demonstrating higher engagement and follower growth when compared to Facebook. Of note, on both platforms, posts that highlighted team members and allies resonated well, and generated the most interaction. This not only emphasizes social media as an effective tool to engage underserved populations in the research process, but also suggests that emphasizing representation and ally-ship among research teams is impactful when engaging Indigenous audiences. This outcome exemplifies the importance of integrating cultural relevance in public health messaging when discussing thoughts and attitudes surrounding smoking cessation.

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Abstract Rationale Increased risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) hospitalization and death has been reported among patients with clinical lung disease. Objectives To test the association of objective measures of prepandemic lung function and structure with COVID-19 outcomes in U.S. adults. Methods Prepandemic obstruction (FEV1/FVC < 0.70) and restriction (FEV1/FVC ⩾ 0.7, FVC < 80%) were defined based on the most recent spirometry exam conducted in 11 prospective U.S. general population–based cohorts. Severe obstruction was classified by FEV1 < 50%. Percentage emphysema, percentage high-attenuation areas, and interstitial lung abnormalities were defined on computed tomography in a subset. Incident COVID-19 was ascertained via questionnaires, serosurvey, and medical records from 2020 to 2023 and classified as severe (hospitalized or fatal) or nonsevere. Cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for sociodemographics, anthropometry, smoking, comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Measurements and Main Results Among 29,323 participants (mean age, 67 yr), there were 748 severe incident COVID-19 cases over median follow-up of 17.3 months from March 1, 2020. Greater hazards of severe COVID-19 were associated with severe obstruction (vs. normal; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.27), restriction (vs. normal; aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12–1.76), and percentage emphysema (highest vs. lowest quartile; aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.03–2.61), but not greater high-attenuation areas or interstitial lung abnormalities. COVID-19 vaccination provided greater absolute risk reduction in these groups. Results were similar in participants without smoking, obesity, or clinical cardiopulmonary disease. Conclusions Prepandemic severe spirometric obstruction, spirometric restriction, and greater percentage emphysema lung on computed tomography were associated with risk of severe COVID-19. These findings support enhanced COVID-19 risk mitigation for individuals with impaired lung health and warrant further mechanistic studies on interactions of lung function, structure, and vulnerability to acute respiratory illnesses.

AbstractBackgroundΕ‐Aminocaproic acid oral solution (EACA OS) is the only commercially available antifibrinolytic for patients who cannot swallow tablets. Insurance denials and high costs remain barriers to its use.ObjectivesTo determine the safety and efficacy of crushed tranexamic acid tablets in water (cTXAw) for children with bleeding disorders.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of children (<10 years) with bleeding disorders who received cTXAw or EACA OS from 1 December 2018, through 31 July 2022, at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota). Bleeding outcomes were defined according to ISTH criteria.ResultsThirty‐two patients were included (median age, 3 years; male, n = 23). Diagnoses were VWD (n = 17), haemophilia (n = 5), FVII deficiency (n = 3), inherited platelet disorder (n = 4), ITP (n = 2), and combined FV and FVII deficiencies (n = 1). Thirty‐two courses of cTXAw (monotherapy 24/32; mean duration 6 days) and fifteen courses of EACA (monotherapy 12/15; mean duration 5 days) were administered. No surgical procedures (n = 28) were complicated by bleeding. Of the 19 bleeding events, 16 had effective haemostasis, two had no reported outcome, and one had no response. cTXAw and EACA were equally effective in preventing and treating bleeding (p value > .1). No patients had adverse effects. Eight of 19 patients (42%) who were initially prescribed EACA OS did not receive it because of cost or insurance denial.The estimated average wholesale price of one treatment was $94 for cTXAw and $905 for EACA OS.ConclusionsCTXAw appears to be an effective, safe, and low‐cost alternative option to EACA OS for young children with bleeding disorders.