1. Home
  2. outpatients

outpatients

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

Author/s: 
Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Ferdinands, J. M., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Talbot, H. K., Fry, A. M.

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Existing methods of screening for substance abuse (standardized questionnaires or clinician’s simply asking) have proven difficult to initiate and maintain in primary care settings. This article reports on how predictive modeling can be used to screen for

Author/s: 
Alemi, Farrokh, Avramovic, Sanja, Schwartz, Mark D.

Existing methods of screening for substance abuse (standardized questionnaires or clinician's simply asking) have proven difficult to initiate and maintain in primary care settings. This article reports on how predictive modeling can be used to screen for substance abuse using extant data in electronic health records (EHRs). We relied on data available through Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) for the years 2006 through 2016. We focused on 4,681,809 veterans who had at least two primary care visits; 829,827 of whom had a hospitalization. Data included 699 million outpatient and 17 million inpatient records. The dependent variable was substance abuse as identified from 89 diagnostic codes using the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research classification of diseases. In addition, we included the diagnostic codes used for identification of prescription abuse. The independent variables were 10,292 inpatient and 13,512 outpatient diagnoses, plus 71 dummy variables measuring age at different years between 20 and 90 years. A modified naive Bayes model was used to aggregate the risk across predictors. The accuracy of the predictions was examined using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curve in 20% of data, randomly set aside for the evaluation. Many physical/mental illnesses were associated with substance abuse. These associations supported findings reported in the literature regarding the impact of substance abuse on various diseases and vice versa. In randomly set-aside validation data, the model accurately predicted substance abuse for inpatient (AROC = 0.884), outpatient (AROC = 0.825), and combined inpatient and outpatient (AROC = 0.840) data. If one excludes information available after substance abuse is known, the cross-validated AROC remained high, 0.822 for inpatient and 0.817 for outpatient data. Data within EHRs can be used to detect existing or predict potential future substance abuse.

Keywords 
opioid abuse predictive models prescription abuse screening substance abuse veterans RISEOK

A Battery of Easily Accessible, Simple Tools for the Assessment of Concussion in Children

Author/s: 
Brown, William D., Baird, Janette, Kriz, Peter K.

Objective: To determine whether a non-proprietary, novel testing battery can identify recently concussed children within 8 weeks of injury.

Study design: In total, 568 clinic outpatients aged 10-18 years were sorted into 3 groups: 316 had never been concussed, 162 had ever been concussed before 8 weeks earlier, and 90 had been recently concussed within 8 weeks. At initial and any subsequent visits, a neurologic examination and 4 procedures were performed: Stick Drop, Wall Ball, Sharpened Modified Romberg (SMR), and Animal Naming. Analysis included inter-group and intra-person performance differences using a series of t tests on the Stick Drop, Wall Ball, SMR, and Animal Naming.

Results: The recently concussed group performed worse (P < .01 for all) on Stick Drop, total Wall Ball bounces and drops, and SMR compared with never-concussed and ever-concussed groups. This effect for Stick Drop, SMR, and Wall Ball but not Animal Naming persisted beyond the 4 weeks commonly stated to define recovery. Of 59 recently concussed subjects who returned for ≥1 visit, there were improvements in Stick Drop average (P = .004) and maxima (P = .02) as well as SMR (P = .01) but not Animal Naming between initial and subsequent visits.

Conclusions: This novel, rapid testing battery distinguished groups of children ages 10-18 years who had and had not experienced a recent concussion. A view that physical concussion symptoms resolve within a month of injury may be incomplete. Deployment of this readily available, inexpensive and non-proprietary battery should be compared with other tools and studied further in serial assessments.

Keywords 
adolescent brian child concussion diagnosis evaluation injury

Best Practices, Research Gaps, and Future Priorities to Support Tapering Patients on Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Outpatient Settings

Author/s: 
Rich, Robert, Mariano, Edward R., Dopp, Anna Legreid, Sullenger, Rebecca, Burstin, Helen

Not available.

Keywords 
Opioid-Related Disorders pain management

Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network — United States, March–June 2020

Author/s: 
Tenforde, M.W., Kim, S.S., Lindsell, C.J., Rose, E.B.

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Relatively little is known about the clinical course of COVID-19 and return to baseline health for persons with milder, outpatient illness.

What is added by this report?

In a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health.

What are the implications for public health practice?

COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness, even among young adults without underlying chronic medical conditions. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted.

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

Author/s: 
Causada-Calo, N., Bishay, K., Albashir, S., Mazroui, A.A., Armstrong, D.

Abstract

Importance: There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.

Objective: To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.

Design, setting, and participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.

Exposures: Older age (≥75 years).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.

Results: The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.

Efficacy of Gabapentin for the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Patients With Alcohol Withdrawal Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Anton, R.F., Latham, P., Voronin, K., Book, S., Hoffman, M., Bristol, E., Prisciandaro, J.

OBJECTIVE: 

To examine whether gabapentin would be useful in the treatment of AUD, especially in those with the most alcoholwithdrawal symptoms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: 

This double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted between November 2014 and June 2018 evaluated gabapentin vs placebo in community-recruited participants screened and treated in an academic outpatient setting over a 16-week treatment period. A total of 145 treatment-seeking individuals who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) criteria for AUD and were not receiving other AUD intervention were screened, and 96 who also met recent alcohol withdrawalcriteria were randomized to treatment after 3 abstinent days. Daily drinking was recorded, and percentage of disialo carbohydrate-deficient transferrin in the blood, a heavy drinking marker, was collected at baseline and monthly during treatment.

INTERVENTIONS: 

Gabapentin up to 1200 mg/d, orally, vs placebo along with 9 medical management visits (20 minutes each).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 

The percentage of individuals with no heavy drinking days and those with total abstinence were compared between treatment groups and further evaluated based on prestudy alcohol withdrawal symptoms.

RESULTS: 

Of 96 randomized individuals, 90 were evaluable (44 in the gabapentin arm and 46 in the placebo arm), with a mean (SD) age of 49.6 (10.1) years; 69 were men (77%) and 85 were white (94%). The evaluable participants had 83% baseline heavy drinking days (4 or more drinks/day for women, 5 or more for men) and met 4.5 alcohol withdrawal criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition). More gabapentin-treated individuals had no heavy drinking days (12 of 44 participants [27%]) compared with placebo (4 of 46 participants [9%]), a difference of 18.6% (95% CI, 3.1-34.1; P = .02; number needed to treat [NNT], 5.4), and more total abstinence (8 of 44 [18%]) compared with placebo (2 of 46 [4%]), a difference of 13.8% (95% CI, 1.0-26.7; P = .04; NNT, 6.2). The prestudy high-alcohol withdrawal group had positive gabapentin effects on no heavy drinking days (P < .02; NNT, 3.1) and total abstinence (P = .003; NNT, 2.7) compared with placebo, while within the low-alcohol withdrawal group, there were no significant differences. These findings were similar for other drinking variables, where gabapentin was more efficacious than placebo in the high-alcohol withdrawal group only. Gabapentin caused more dizziness, but this did not affect efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 

These data, combined with others, suggest gabapentin might be most efficacious in people with AUD and a history of alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should evaluate sleep changes and mood during early recovery as mediators of gabapentin efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: 

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02349477.

Comparative Effectiveness of Different Treatment Pathways for Opioid Use Disorder

Author/s: 
Wakeman, SE, Larochelle, MR, Ameli, O, Chaisson, CE, McPheeters, JT, Crown, WH, Azocar, F, Sanghavi, DM

IMPORTANCE:

Although clinical trials demonstrate the superior effectiveness of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) compared with nonpharmacologic treatment, national data on the comparative effectiveness of real-world treatment pathways are lacking.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine associations between opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment pathways and overdose and opioid-related acute care use as proxies for OUD recurrence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study assessed deidentified claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from individuals aged 16 years or older with OUD and commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage. Opioid use disorder was identified based on 1 or more inpatient or 2 or more outpatient claims for OUD diagnosis codes within 3 months of each other; 1 or more claims for OUD plus diagnosis codes for opioid-related overdose, injection-related infection, or inpatient detoxification or residential services; or MOUD claims between January 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES:

One of 6 mutually exclusive treatment pathways, including (1) no treatment, (2) inpatient detoxification or residential services, (3) intensive behavioral health, (4) buprenorphine or methadone, (5) naltrexone, and (6) nonintensive behavioral health.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Opioid-related overdose or serious acute care use during 3 and 12 months after initial treatment.

RESULTS:

A total of 40 885 individuals with OUD (mean [SD] age, 47.73 [17.25] years; 22 172 [54.2%] male; 30 332 [74.2%] white) were identified. For OUD treatment, 24 258 (59.3%) received nonintensive behavioral health, 6455 (15.8%) received inpatient detoxification or residential services, 5123 (12.5%) received MOUD treatment with buprenorphine or methadone, 1970 (4.8%) received intensive behavioral health, and 963 (2.4%) received MOUD treatment with naltrexone. During 3-month follow-up, 707 participants (1.7%) experienced an overdose, and 773 (1.9%) had serious opioid-related acute care use. Only treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with a reduced risk of overdose during 3-month (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.41) and 12-month (AHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.55) follow-up. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was also associated with reduction in serious opioid-related acute care use during 3-month (AHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99) and 12-month (AHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with other treatments. Strategies to address the underuse of MOUD are needed.

Keywords 
opioid-use disorder treatment OUD overdose Buprenorphine methadone

Building a Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) blueprint: a qualitative study delineating GBOT implementation

Author/s: 
Sokol, R, Albanese, M, Chew, A, Early, J, Grossman, E, Roll, D, Sawin, G, Wu, DJ, Schuman-Olivier, Z

BACKGROUND:

Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment?

METHODS:

To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components.

RESULTS:

We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions.

CONCLUSION:

While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.

Keywords 
Buprenorphine-naloxone GBOT Group psychotherapy Group visit Implementation science Shared medical appointment Group-Based Opioid Treatment
Subscribe to outpatients