Citations

AbstractBackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is characterized as a central sensitization syndrome (CSS), a group of conditions including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and restless leg syndrome (RLS) among others with frequent comorbidities of anxiety, depression, and chemical sensitivity. The prevalence of comorbid conditions and their impact on IBS symptom severity and quality of life in rural community populations has not been described.MethodsWe administered a cross‐sectional survey to patients with a documented CSS diagnosis in rural primary care practices to evaluate the relationship between CSS diagnoses, quality of life, symptom severity, and interactions with healthcare providers utilizing validated questionnaires. Subgroup analysis was performed on the IBS cohort. Mayo Clinic IRB approved the study.Key ResultsSeven hundred seventy‐five individuals out of 5000 completed the survey (15.5% response rate) with 264 (34%) reporting IBS. Only 3% (n = 8) of IBS patients reported IBS alone without comorbid CSS condition. Most respondents reported overlapping migraine (196, 74%), depression (183, 69%), anxiety (171, 64%), and fibromyalgia (139, 52%). IBS patients with more than two comorbid CS condition showed significantly higher symptom severity with linear increase. Quality of life was lower in IBS with comorbid conditions, particularly in patients with IBS and RLS (mean EQ5‐D 0.36 vs. 0.8 in IBS only, p < 0.01). Quality of life declined as number of comorbid conditions increased.Conclusions & InferencesPatients with IBS often have multiple CS disorders which increases symptom severity and lowers quality of life. Understanding the impact of multiple CSS diagnoses and treating these as a global condition may improve patient experience.

AbstractBackgroundRNA‐seq experiments have traditionally been done with short‐read sequencing technologies that, by nature, collapse all RNA isoforms for a given gene into a single expression measurement—a major oversimplification of the underlying biology. Collapsing all RNA isoforms for a single gene severely limits our ability to characterize all RNA isoforms and determine their individual downstream functions. While computational approaches for assembling short reads into full transcripts exist, these methods are inherently structurally inaccurate, especially when compared to full‐length sequencing possible with long‐read sequencing technologies. In contrast, long‐read sequencing technologies can sequence entire RNA molecules, allowing researchers to accurately quantify expression for the complete set of RNA isoform species, including de novo RNA isoforms. Long‐read sequencing is especially well suited for discovering novel isoforms in the recently released telomere‐to‐telomere (T2T) human reference genome (CHM13). The new CHM13 genome assembly resolved highly homologous regions that are challenging to study with short‐reads. Here we sequenced post‐mortem human brain tissue with long‐reads and aligned them to CHM13 to explore novel gene bodies and transcript isoforms.MethodsWe sequenced pre‐frontal cortex tissue from four post‐mortem human brain samples using Oxford Nanopore Technologies long‐read sequencing for PCR amplified cDNA. Data were basecalled using Guppy, reads were aligned to the CHM13 human reference genome using minimap2, and transcripts were assembled and quantified with the Bambu package in R.ResultsAmong other findings, we discovered 84 new, high‐confidence gene bodies expressed in all four samples with at least 5 reads in each sample. We also found 223 novel RNA isoforms in previously annotated gene bodies. Of these 223 novel isoforms, 29 aligned to medically relevant genes such as MAOB, HLA‐DRB1, and ABO.ConclusionsOur results suggest long‐reads aligned to the CHM13 reference genome have the potential to reveal novel gene bodies and transcript isoforms that were missed in previous studies. These methods can provide a more complete picture of the transcriptomic landscape of diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease—hopefully generating information with potential to help inform future treatment and/or early diagnostic efforts.

Background Chronic pain in cancer survivors negatively impacts quality of life. This study sought to investigate the relationship between high-impact chronic pain (HICP) -- defined as chronic pain that limits life or work activities on most days or every day in the past 3 months -- and cannabis in cancer survivors. Methods An electronic survey was developed in conjunction with the National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States. This survey was distributed to cancer survivors within a multi-site, single institution setting. Results The survey response rate was 23.0% (2304/10,000); 72.7% of these patients (1676/2304) did in fact have a confirmed cancer diagnosis. Among these cancer survivors, 16.5% (unweighted 278/1676) had HICP, and 12.4% (208/1676) reported cannabis use since their cancer diagnosis. The prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use was 12.3% (206/1676). Compared to cancer survivors without pain, those with HICP were more likely to believe in the benefits of cannabis (unweighted 92.1% vs. 74.7%; age-adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9-5.1) and less likely to believe in its risks (unweighted 48.2% vs. 58.4%; age-adjusted OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-0.7). Conclusions Cancer survivors with HICP have a higher prevalence of cannabis use compared to those patients without pain. More research is needed to advance pain and symptom management among cancer survivors and to identify clinical scenarios in which benefit is greater than potential harm.

Background: Despite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change. Objective: The primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. Methods: We conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states. Results: One hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists. Conclusions: Results of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers’ willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.

AbstractAimsTo compare brief advice (BA), motivational interviewing (MI), rate reduction (RR), and combined MI and RR (MI + RR) to promote smoking cessation in smokers not ready to quit.DesignRandomized controlled trial with four parallel groups of smoking cessation intervention. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to receive one of the following interventions: BA (n = 128), MI (n = 258), RR (n = 257), and MI + RR (n = 260).SettingThe United States. All participant contact occurred over the telephone to be consistent with the typical quit line format.ParticipantsA total of 903 adult smokers. Participants had a mean age of 49 (SD = 13.3) years and were 28.9% male and 63.3% Caucasian.InterventionsThe BA group received advice similar to typical smoking cessation quit lines. The MI group received advice using basic MI principles to elicit language that indicates behavioral change. The RR group received behavioral skills training and nicotine gum. The MI + RR group combined elements of MI and RR conditions. All interventions were six sessions.MeasurementsThe primary outcome measure was self‐reported point prevalence at 12 months. The secondary outcome was self‐reported prolonged abstinence at 12 months.FindingsIntention to treat (ITT) point prevalence at 12 months indicated that BA (10.9%) had significantly lower point prevalence rates than RR (27.2%, OR = 3.17, 1.69–5.94), and MI + RR (26.9%, OR = 3.16, 1.68–5.93). BA did not have a significantly lower point prevalence rate than MI (15.5%, OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.81–3.02).ConclusionsThis randomized controlled trial provided evidence that rate reduction, which offers structured behavioral skills and nicotine gum, either alone or combined with motivational interviewing, is the most effective form of cessation intervention for smokers not ready to quit.

Introduction Central sensitization syndromes (CSS) comprise an overlapping group of clinical conditions with the core feature of “pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system.” Patients with CSS are known to have challenging interactions with healthcare providers contributing to psychological distress and increased healthcare utilization. CSS symptom severity has been associated with psychologic comorbidities, but little is known about how symptom severity relates to provider interactions. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey among patients with CSS in our primary care practices to examine the relationship between CSS symptom severity and experiences with doctors. Results A total of 775 respondents completed the survey (775/5000; 15.5%) with 72% reporting high CSS symptom severity. About 44% of respondents had a prior diagnosis of fibromyalgia, 72% had migraines, and 28% had IBS. Patients with high CSS symptom severity were more likely to report that doctor(s) had often/always told them that they don’t need treatment when they feel like they do (OR = 3.6, 95% CI 1.9-7.5), that doctor(s) often/always don’t understand them (OR = 3.1, 95% CI 1.9-5.4), and that doctor(s) often/always seem annoyed with them when compared with respondents with low-moderate CSS symptom severity (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 2.2-12.5). Patients with high CSS symptom severity were at greater than 5 times odds of reporting being told that their symptoms were “all in their head” when compared to patients with low-moderate symptom severity (OR = 5.4, 95% CI 3.3-9.0). Conclusion Patients with CSS spectrum disorders experience frequent pain and decreased quality of life. A high degree of CSS symptom severity is associated with negative experiences with healthcare providers, which deters the establishment of a positive provider-patient relationship. Further research is needed to help understand symptom severity in CSS and harness the power of the therapeutic alliance as a treatment modality.

Abstract Background: Palliative care is a medical specialty centered on improving the quality of life (QOL) of patients with complex or life-threatening illnesses. The need for Palliative care is increasing and with that the rigorous testing of triage tools that can be used quickly and reliably to identify patients that may benefit from palliative care. Methods: To that Aim we will conduct a two-armed stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial rolled out to two inpatient hospitals to evaluate whether a machine learning algorithm accurately identifies patients who may benefit from a comprehensive review by a palliative care specialist, and decreases time to receiving a palliative care consult in hospital. This is a single-center study which will be conducted from August 2019 to November 2020 at Saint Mary’s Hospital & Methodist Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Clusters will be nursing units which will be chosen to be a mix of complex patients from Cardiology, Critical Care and Oncology and had previously established relationships with palliative medicine. The stepped wedge design will have 12 units allocated to a design matrix of 5 treatment wedges. Each wedge will last 75 days resulting in a study period of 12 months unless otherwise specified. Data will be analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models with credible intervals denoting statistical significance.Discussion: This intervention offers a pragmatic approach to delivering specialty palliative care to hospital patients in need using machine learning, thereby leading to high value care and improved outcomes. It is not enough for AI to be utilized by simply publishing research showing predictive performance; Clinical trials demonstrating better outcomes are critically needed. Furthermore, the deployment of an AI algorithm is a complex process that requires multiple teams with varying skill sets. To evaluate a deployed AI, a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate the difficulties of clinical practice whilst retaining scientific rigor.Trial registration NCT03976297 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered on June 6, 2019 prior to trial start.

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.