Emergency Service

Not the strongest methodology but still suggests the RSV vaccine is very effective for reducing RSV-related hospitalizations in people over 75. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Clinical trials have demonstrated high vaccine efficacy (VE) against lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) but enrolled a smaller proportion of persons aged 75 years or older and those with comorbidities than seen in highest-risk populations in clinical practice settings. Additionally, VE against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits is not yet fully described.

Objective: To estimate Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F (RSVpreF) effectiveness in older adults.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a retrospective case-control study with a test negative design. Cases were adults aged 60 years or older with hospitalizations or ED visits at Kaiser Permanente of Southern California for LRTD from November 24, 2023, to April 9, 2024, who had respiratory swabs collected and tested for RSV. Two control definitions were prespecified: (1) strict controls included RSV-negative LRTD events that were negative for human metapneumovirus, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza, and positive for a nonvaccine preventable cause (primary) and (2) broad controls included all RSV-negative LRTD events (sensitivity analysis). Enhanced specimen collection was conducted to salvage clinical respiratory swabs not tested for RSV during routine care. Data were analyzed from May to September 2024.

Exposure: RSVpreF vaccine receipt during the first RSV season after licensure and 21 or more days before LRTD event.

Main outcomes and measures: Estimated VE against first episode of RSV-related LRTD hospitalization or ED visit.

Results: A total of 7047 LRTD-related hospitalizations or ED encounters with RSV testing results were included. The mean (SD) age was 76.8 (9.6) years; 3819 (54.2%) were female; 839 (11.9%) were non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 2323 (33.0%) were Hispanic, 1197 (17.0%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 2602 (36.9%) were non-Hispanic White; 998 (14.2%) were immunocompromised; and 6573 (93.3%) had 1 or more Charlson comorbidity. Using strict controls, estimated adjusted VE was 91% (95% CI, 59%-98%). Using broad controls, estimated adjusted VE was 90% (95% CI, 59%-97%).

Conclusions and relevance: In a high-risk, general population, RSVpreF vaccination conferred protection against RSV-related LRTD in the hospital and ED settings among US adults aged 60 years or older, the majority of whom were aged 75 years or older and had comorbidities. These data support use of this vaccine in older adults.

Author/s:

Sara Y Tartof, Negar Aliabadi, Gabriella Goodwin, Jeff Slezak, Vennis Hong

Effect of fluvoxamine on outcomes of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aubrey Delammermore — Sun, 06 Nov 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 6, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Infection and Public Health

Publisher:

Elsevier B. V.

Publication Date:

October 13, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1259-1264

URL:

Effect of fluvoxamine on outcomes of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.010

Keywords

Odds Ratio

Artificial respiration

control groups

hospitalization

bibliometrics

PMID (1):

36272390

MeSH

Fluvoxamine can reduce risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objectives: This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.

Results: Four studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I2 = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I2 = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.

Conclusion: Fluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.

Keywords: COVID-19; Emergency department; Fluvoxamine; Hospitalization; SARS-CoV-2.

Author/s:

Lu, L., Chao, C., Chang, S., Lan, S., Lai, C.

Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care

Bethie Seay — Tue, 25 May 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 25, 2021

Type:

Notifications and Opportunities

MeSH

Humans

United States

Information Technology

Adaptation, physiological

Quality of Health Care

This is a summary of recommendations from a National Academy of Medicine panel on Implementing High Quality Primary Care.

View

High-quality primary care is the foundation of a high-functioning health care system. When it is high-quality, primary care provides continuous, personcentered, relationship-based care that considers the needs and preferences of individuals, families, and communities. Without access to high-quality primary care, minor health problems can spiral into chronic disease, chronic disease management becomes difficult and uncoordinated, visits to emergency departments increase, preventive care lags, and health care spending soars to unsustainable levels.

Unequal access to primary care remains a concern, and the COVID-19 pandemic amplified pervasive economic, mental health, and social health disparities that ubiquitous, high-quality primary care might have reduced. Primary care is the only health care component where an increased supply is associated with better population health and more equitable outcomes. For this reason, primary care is a common good, which makes the strength and quality of the country’s primary care services a public concern.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed the Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care in 2019. Building on the recommendations of the 1996 Institute of Medicine report Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era, the committee was tasked to develop an implementation plan for high-quality primary care in the United States.

The committee’s definition of high-quality primary care (see Box 1) describes what it should be, not what most people in the United States experience today. To rebuild a strong foundation for the U.S. health care system, the committee’s implementation plan includes objectives and actions targeting primary care stakeholders and balancing national needs for scalable solutions while allowing for adaptations to meet local needs.

The committee set five implementation objectives to make high-quality primary care available to all people living in the United States:

1. Pay for primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.

2.Ensure that high-quality primary care is available to every individual and family in every community.

3.Train primary care teams where people live and work.

4.Design information technology that serves the patient, family, and the interprofessional care team.

5.Ensure that high-quality primary care is implemented in the United States.

Author/s:

The National Academy of Sciences