Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The punch biopsies were consistent with lichen planopilaris, an idiopathic, immune-mediated scarring alopecia that largely affects women between the ages of 40 and 70 years. In this variant of lichen planus, T cells target hair bulbs and cause destruction with scarring and permanent hair loss. Distribution may be patchy or may be more concentrated on the crown or involve the frontal scalp—a subtype called frontal fibrosing alopecia. Early recognition and intervention may save hair follicles and minimize disease severity.

The differential diagnosis includes traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, alopecia areata, centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, and folliculitis decalvans. The diagnosis may be confirmed with a scalp biopsy of actively inflamed follicles. Biopsy of scarred areas is likely to be nonspecific and unhelpful.

Treatment is targeted at slowing progression and symptom management. First-line therapy often includes potent corticosteroids (intralesional, topical, or systemic). Longer courses of steroid-sparing agents may be considered, including hydroxychloroquine, tacrolimus, ciclosporin, methotrexate, or acitretin. Hair styling and coloring, as well as hairpieces, often are used to conceal patches of hair loss. Hair transplantation is expensive but can be used to increase hair density in scarred areas once disease is controlled.

In this case, the patient was started on clobetasol solution 0.05% to be applied nightly to affected areas of the scalp. This treatment helped with the itching, but the inflammation and hair loss continued to worsen after 2 months. At that point, hydroxychloroquine 200 mg bid was added to the regimen, and hair loss and associated symptoms stopped. The patient remained on this therapy for 16 months. The hydroxychloroquine was then stopped, and the patient was advised to use the topical clobetasol, as needed.

‌

Text courtesy of Tristan Reynolds, DO, Maine Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, and Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

The punch biopsies were consistent with lichen planopilaris, an idiopathic, immune-mediated scarring alopecia that largely affects women between the ages of 40 and 70 years. In this variant of lichen planus, T cells target hair bulbs and cause destruction with scarring and permanent hair loss. Distribution may be patchy or may be more concentrated on the crown or involve the frontal scalp—a subtype called frontal fibrosing alopecia. Early recognition and intervention may save hair follicles and minimize disease severity.

The differential diagnosis includes traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, alopecia areata, centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, and folliculitis decalvans. The diagnosis may be confirmed with a scalp biopsy of actively inflamed follicles. Biopsy of scarred areas is likely to be nonspecific and unhelpful.

Treatment is targeted at slowing progression and symptom management. First-line therapy often includes potent corticosteroids (intralesional, topical, or systemic). Longer courses of steroid-sparing agents may be considered, including hydroxychloroquine, tacrolimus, ciclosporin, methotrexate, or acitretin. Hair styling and coloring, as well as hairpieces, often are used to conceal patches of hair loss. Hair transplantation is expensive but can be used to increase hair density in scarred areas once disease is controlled.

In this case, the patient was started on clobetasol solution 0.05% to be applied nightly to affected areas of the scalp. This treatment helped with the itching, but the inflammation and hair loss continued to worsen after 2 months. At that point, hydroxychloroquine 200 mg bid was added to the regimen, and hair loss and associated symptoms stopped. The patient remained on this therapy for 16 months. The hydroxychloroquine was then stopped, and the patient was advised to use the topical clobetasol, as needed.

‌

Text courtesy of Tristan Reynolds, DO, Maine Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, and Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

The punch biopsies were consistent with lichen planopilaris, an idiopathic, immune-mediated scarring alopecia that largely affects women between the ages of 40 and 70 years. In this variant of lichen planus, T cells target hair bulbs and cause destruction with scarring and permanent hair loss. Distribution may be patchy or may be more concentrated on the crown or involve the frontal scalp—a subtype called frontal fibrosing alopecia. Early recognition and intervention may save hair follicles and minimize disease severity.

The differential diagnosis includes traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, alopecia areata, centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, and folliculitis decalvans. The diagnosis may be confirmed with a scalp biopsy of actively inflamed follicles. Biopsy of scarred areas is likely to be nonspecific and unhelpful.

Treatment is targeted at slowing progression and symptom management. First-line therapy often includes potent corticosteroids (intralesional, topical, or systemic). Longer courses of steroid-sparing agents may be considered, including hydroxychloroquine, tacrolimus, ciclosporin, methotrexate, or acitretin. Hair styling and coloring, as well as hairpieces, often are used to conceal patches of hair loss. Hair transplantation is expensive but can be used to increase hair density in scarred areas once disease is controlled.

In this case, the patient was started on clobetasol solution 0.05% to be applied nightly to affected areas of the scalp. This treatment helped with the itching, but the inflammation and hair loss continued to worsen after 2 months. At that point, hydroxychloroquine 200 mg bid was added to the regimen, and hair loss and associated symptoms stopped. The patient remained on this therapy for 16 months. The hydroxychloroquine was then stopped, and the patient was advised to use the topical clobetasol, as needed.

‌

Text courtesy of Tristan Reynolds, DO, Maine Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, and Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:
 

• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with three different strictures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22491)
• Patient case: Alcoholic hepatitis and positive anti-smooth muscle antibody (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22407)
• COVID-19: The importance of preparedness in independent GI practices (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22340)
• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with no tissue (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22472)

Roundtables (https://community.gastro.org/discussions/)

• Roadmap for the future of colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.
• Windows on Clinical GI lecture series: NAFLD, Crohn’s disease and gastroparesis

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:
 

• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with three different strictures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22491)
• Patient case: Alcoholic hepatitis and positive anti-smooth muscle antibody (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22407)
• COVID-19: The importance of preparedness in independent GI practices (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22340)
• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with no tissue (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22472)

Roundtables (https://community.gastro.org/discussions/)

• Roadmap for the future of colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.
• Windows on Clinical GI lecture series: NAFLD, Crohn’s disease and gastroparesis

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:
 

• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with three different strictures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22491)
• Patient case: Alcoholic hepatitis and positive anti-smooth muscle antibody (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22407)
• COVID-19: The importance of preparedness in independent GI practices (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22340)
• Patient case: Crohn’s patient with no tissue (https://community.gastro.org/posts/22472)

Roundtables (https://community.gastro.org/discussions/)

• Roadmap for the future of colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.
• Windows on Clinical GI lecture series: NAFLD, Crohn’s disease and gastroparesis

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Gastroenterology is proud to announce the release of a special collection of colorectal cancer articles. This curated collection includes some of the top colorectal cancer research published over the last 3 years with new research being added to the collection as it’s published.

View the special collection on Gastroenterology’s website, which is designed to help you quickly scan recent colorectal cancer research and easily navigate to studies of interest. Recent articles include:
 

• Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Analytics From Live Colonoscopies to Optimize the Quality of the Colonoscopy Examination in Real Time: Proof of Concept
• Risk Factors for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
• Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

To view all of Gastroenterology’s curated article collections, please visit gastro.org/GastroCollections.

ginews@gastro.org

Gastroenterology is proud to announce the release of a special collection of colorectal cancer articles. This curated collection includes some of the top colorectal cancer research published over the last 3 years with new research being added to the collection as it’s published.

View the special collection on Gastroenterology’s website, which is designed to help you quickly scan recent colorectal cancer research and easily navigate to studies of interest. Recent articles include:
 

• Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Analytics From Live Colonoscopies to Optimize the Quality of the Colonoscopy Examination in Real Time: Proof of Concept
• Risk Factors for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
• Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

To view all of Gastroenterology’s curated article collections, please visit gastro.org/GastroCollections.

ginews@gastro.org

Gastroenterology is proud to announce the release of a special collection of colorectal cancer articles. This curated collection includes some of the top colorectal cancer research published over the last 3 years with new research being added to the collection as it’s published.

View the special collection on Gastroenterology’s website, which is designed to help you quickly scan recent colorectal cancer research and easily navigate to studies of interest. Recent articles include:
 

• Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Analytics From Live Colonoscopies to Optimize the Quality of the Colonoscopy Examination in Real Time: Proof of Concept
• Risk Factors for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
• Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

To view all of Gastroenterology’s curated article collections, please visit gastro.org/GastroCollections.

ginews@gastro.org

The search engine giants, Dr. Google or Dr. Bing, are visited by most of our patients before seeking medical help. In 1976, medical student Tom Ferguson, MD, first coined the term e-Patient. It means a health consumer who uses the Internet to gather information about a medical condition for themselves or on behalf of family and friends and uses electronic communication tools to cope with medical conditions. Dr. Ferguson described e-Patients as “empowered medical consumers.”¹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and networking platforms – such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, WhatsApp, online health support groups – are used increasingly by e-Patients to gather critical health information. Health care providers often take a conflicted stand on the use of social media. Though we want our patients to read about their illnesses and make informed choices, we often get frustrated by misdiagnoses, misinformation, and disinformation that comes with it.

According to a study investigating the differential diffusion of news stories distributed on Twitter from 2006 to 2017, fake news was considered more novel than true news, and people were more likely to share novel information.² Bots accelerated the spread of true and fake news at the same rate, implying that fake news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it. Social media has promoted some of the best health campaigns, like public cancer awareness, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, World Heart Day, and others. At the same time, it has also provided a platform for antivaccination activists, dangerous and unproven alternative cancer therapies, weight loss pills, and nutrition plans.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 72% of adult Internet users had searched online for information about a range of health issues of their own or for others in the past 12 months.³ A survey from 2019-2020 showed that those who relied on social media for news were among the least knowledgeable about key facts during the COVID-19 outbreak.⁴ About 74% of public posts about COVID-19 were linked to news organizations, while just 1% linked to health and science sites.⁵ While social media has emerged as one of the most significant health information sources, it famously has only a few safeguards in place against medical misinformation. Requiring responsibility and regulations for accurate or evidence-based information walks a thin line on infringing freedom of speech. Medical misinformation related to COVID-19 has become as contagious as the virus itself.

In February 2020, the World Health Organization warned that a massive ‘Infodemic’ had accompanied the COVID-19 outbreak, with an overabundance of information, some accurate and some not, making it difficult for people to find reliable sources and trustworthy information.⁶ The Black immunity myth, groups opposing vaccines, campaigns against 5G mobile phone networks, suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered bioweapon, and online rumors leading to mob attacks in India and mass poisonings in Iran are some of the misleading health information that has circulated related to COVID-19.

In the Web 2.0 era, in which credible health information comes packaged with divisive and misleading information, social media’s full impact on health care, health outcomes, and mental health has yet to be explored. Social networks and media sharing networks have recently announced initiatives to stop misinformation and disinformation by fact-checking, flagging, issuing warnings, and deleting misinformation or misleading content. Providing links to more and correct information and partnering with health and science organizations can also encourage the spread of verifiable information.

While we have yet to see if social media safeguards are adequate, the medical community needs to proactively educate patients on the appropriate use of social media for health information, e-Health literacy, and media health literacy. Like health care providers evaluating scientific papers, we need to cultivate e-Patients’ ability to seek, evaluate, understand, and convey health information from electronic sources. Although the measurement and training tools for e-Health and media health literacy are still scarce, a good place to start could be to have simple conversations with patients. Encouraging patients to critically analyze online information, use credible social media sources, and recognizing the warnings, red flags, and links on unreliable information are some of the discussions worth considering. Equally important is to discourage patients from changing health behaviors or practices based on unverified social media resources and discussing the possible impact of medical misinformation.

A practical approach for e-Patients could be to ask the Five Ws, considered fundamental in information gathering: Who, What, Why, When, and Where.^7,8

• Who runs the website? Examine the authors, sponsors, and sources. Federal agencies’ website addresses end in “.gov,” educational institutions maintain “.edu,” large professional or nonprofit organizations often use “.org,” and commercial websites use “.com.”
• What is offered, and What is the evidence? Does it provide unbelievable solutions or quick, miracle cures?
• Why was the site created? Is the mission or goal to inform, explain, or sell health or medical products? Check details on “About This Site” or “About Us.”
• When was the information written or the webpage last updated?
• Where are the privacy policies? Is your privacy protected?

The anonymity of sources, sponsors, financial interests, or the lack of medical credentials and reputable medical research, the use of testimonials as evidence, outdated or incomplete information, and emotional or exaggerated language should raise suspicion about the reliability of the information. Tools like the online tutorial and a checklist from the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine can also be offered to e-Patients to learn how to evaluate health information online.^9,10

Online health support groups widely used by patients can be an additional layer of support but can also be a source of misinformation. Since they have fewer gatekeepers than traditional face-to-face communication, keeping a check on the credibility of the information can be difficult. Support groups affiliated with local hospitals or national organizations, or those endorsed by well-known scientific societies, can be encouraged instead of less credible sources. Some online support groups, run by non–health care professionals but with experienced and reliable scientific panels, can be useful resources. However, patients must check for the credibility and reliability of the information.

Lastly, just as hospitalists take a social history of our patients, we could also ask for a “social media history” to understand patients’ sources of health information. We can then guide them toward more credible sources to make them truly empowered medical consumers.
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Nelson R. Informatics: Empowering ePatients to drive health care reform - part I. Online J Issues Nurs. 2016 Sep 13;21(3):9.

2. Vosoughi S et al. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2012;359(6380):1146-51.

3. Fox S. The social life of health information. Pew Research Center: Fact Tank. 2014 Jan 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

4. Mitchel A, Jurkowitz M, Oliphant JB, Shearer E. Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable. Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jul 30. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

5. Stocking G, Matsa KE, Khuzam M. As COVID-19 Emerged in U.S., Facebook Posts About It Appeared in a Wide Range of Public Pages, Groups Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

6. Munich Security Conference. World Health Organization. 2020 Feb 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

7. Levin-Zamir D, Bertschi I. Media health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the role of the social environment in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 3;15(8):1643.

8. Online Health Information: Is It Reliable? National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. 2018 Oct 31. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

9. How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers. Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. 2011 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

10. Evaluating Internet Health Information: A Tutorial From the National Library of Medicine. Medline Plus. 2020 Mar 6. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.
 

The search engine giants, Dr. Google or Dr. Bing, are visited by most of our patients before seeking medical help. In 1976, medical student Tom Ferguson, MD, first coined the term e-Patient. It means a health consumer who uses the Internet to gather information about a medical condition for themselves or on behalf of family and friends and uses electronic communication tools to cope with medical conditions. Dr. Ferguson described e-Patients as “empowered medical consumers.”¹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and networking platforms – such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, WhatsApp, online health support groups – are used increasingly by e-Patients to gather critical health information. Health care providers often take a conflicted stand on the use of social media. Though we want our patients to read about their illnesses and make informed choices, we often get frustrated by misdiagnoses, misinformation, and disinformation that comes with it.

According to a study investigating the differential diffusion of news stories distributed on Twitter from 2006 to 2017, fake news was considered more novel than true news, and people were more likely to share novel information.² Bots accelerated the spread of true and fake news at the same rate, implying that fake news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it. Social media has promoted some of the best health campaigns, like public cancer awareness, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, World Heart Day, and others. At the same time, it has also provided a platform for antivaccination activists, dangerous and unproven alternative cancer therapies, weight loss pills, and nutrition plans.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 72% of adult Internet users had searched online for information about a range of health issues of their own or for others in the past 12 months.³ A survey from 2019-2020 showed that those who relied on social media for news were among the least knowledgeable about key facts during the COVID-19 outbreak.⁴ About 74% of public posts about COVID-19 were linked to news organizations, while just 1% linked to health and science sites.⁵ While social media has emerged as one of the most significant health information sources, it famously has only a few safeguards in place against medical misinformation. Requiring responsibility and regulations for accurate or evidence-based information walks a thin line on infringing freedom of speech. Medical misinformation related to COVID-19 has become as contagious as the virus itself.

In February 2020, the World Health Organization warned that a massive ‘Infodemic’ had accompanied the COVID-19 outbreak, with an overabundance of information, some accurate and some not, making it difficult for people to find reliable sources and trustworthy information.⁶ The Black immunity myth, groups opposing vaccines, campaigns against 5G mobile phone networks, suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered bioweapon, and online rumors leading to mob attacks in India and mass poisonings in Iran are some of the misleading health information that has circulated related to COVID-19.

In the Web 2.0 era, in which credible health information comes packaged with divisive and misleading information, social media’s full impact on health care, health outcomes, and mental health has yet to be explored. Social networks and media sharing networks have recently announced initiatives to stop misinformation and disinformation by fact-checking, flagging, issuing warnings, and deleting misinformation or misleading content. Providing links to more and correct information and partnering with health and science organizations can also encourage the spread of verifiable information.

While we have yet to see if social media safeguards are adequate, the medical community needs to proactively educate patients on the appropriate use of social media for health information, e-Health literacy, and media health literacy. Like health care providers evaluating scientific papers, we need to cultivate e-Patients’ ability to seek, evaluate, understand, and convey health information from electronic sources. Although the measurement and training tools for e-Health and media health literacy are still scarce, a good place to start could be to have simple conversations with patients. Encouraging patients to critically analyze online information, use credible social media sources, and recognizing the warnings, red flags, and links on unreliable information are some of the discussions worth considering. Equally important is to discourage patients from changing health behaviors or practices based on unverified social media resources and discussing the possible impact of medical misinformation.

A practical approach for e-Patients could be to ask the Five Ws, considered fundamental in information gathering: Who, What, Why, When, and Where.^7,8

• Who runs the website? Examine the authors, sponsors, and sources. Federal agencies’ website addresses end in “.gov,” educational institutions maintain “.edu,” large professional or nonprofit organizations often use “.org,” and commercial websites use “.com.”
• What is offered, and What is the evidence? Does it provide unbelievable solutions or quick, miracle cures?
• Why was the site created? Is the mission or goal to inform, explain, or sell health or medical products? Check details on “About This Site” or “About Us.”
• When was the information written or the webpage last updated?
• Where are the privacy policies? Is your privacy protected?

The anonymity of sources, sponsors, financial interests, or the lack of medical credentials and reputable medical research, the use of testimonials as evidence, outdated or incomplete information, and emotional or exaggerated language should raise suspicion about the reliability of the information. Tools like the online tutorial and a checklist from the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine can also be offered to e-Patients to learn how to evaluate health information online.^9,10

Online health support groups widely used by patients can be an additional layer of support but can also be a source of misinformation. Since they have fewer gatekeepers than traditional face-to-face communication, keeping a check on the credibility of the information can be difficult. Support groups affiliated with local hospitals or national organizations, or those endorsed by well-known scientific societies, can be encouraged instead of less credible sources. Some online support groups, run by non–health care professionals but with experienced and reliable scientific panels, can be useful resources. However, patients must check for the credibility and reliability of the information.

Lastly, just as hospitalists take a social history of our patients, we could also ask for a “social media history” to understand patients’ sources of health information. We can then guide them toward more credible sources to make them truly empowered medical consumers.
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Nelson R. Informatics: Empowering ePatients to drive health care reform - part I. Online J Issues Nurs. 2016 Sep 13;21(3):9.

2. Vosoughi S et al. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2012;359(6380):1146-51.

3. Fox S. The social life of health information. Pew Research Center: Fact Tank. 2014 Jan 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

4. Mitchel A, Jurkowitz M, Oliphant JB, Shearer E. Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable. Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jul 30. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

5. Stocking G, Matsa KE, Khuzam M. As COVID-19 Emerged in U.S., Facebook Posts About It Appeared in a Wide Range of Public Pages, Groups Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

6. Munich Security Conference. World Health Organization. 2020 Feb 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

7. Levin-Zamir D, Bertschi I. Media health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the role of the social environment in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 3;15(8):1643.

8. Online Health Information: Is It Reliable? National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. 2018 Oct 31. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

9. How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers. Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. 2011 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

10. Evaluating Internet Health Information: A Tutorial From the National Library of Medicine. Medline Plus. 2020 Mar 6. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.
 

The search engine giants, Dr. Google or Dr. Bing, are visited by most of our patients before seeking medical help. In 1976, medical student Tom Ferguson, MD, first coined the term e-Patient. It means a health consumer who uses the Internet to gather information about a medical condition for themselves or on behalf of family and friends and uses electronic communication tools to cope with medical conditions. Dr. Ferguson described e-Patients as “empowered medical consumers.”¹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and networking platforms – such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, WhatsApp, online health support groups – are used increasingly by e-Patients to gather critical health information. Health care providers often take a conflicted stand on the use of social media. Though we want our patients to read about their illnesses and make informed choices, we often get frustrated by misdiagnoses, misinformation, and disinformation that comes with it.

According to a study investigating the differential diffusion of news stories distributed on Twitter from 2006 to 2017, fake news was considered more novel than true news, and people were more likely to share novel information.² Bots accelerated the spread of true and fake news at the same rate, implying that fake news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it. Social media has promoted some of the best health campaigns, like public cancer awareness, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, World Heart Day, and others. At the same time, it has also provided a platform for antivaccination activists, dangerous and unproven alternative cancer therapies, weight loss pills, and nutrition plans.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 72% of adult Internet users had searched online for information about a range of health issues of their own or for others in the past 12 months.³ A survey from 2019-2020 showed that those who relied on social media for news were among the least knowledgeable about key facts during the COVID-19 outbreak.⁴ About 74% of public posts about COVID-19 were linked to news organizations, while just 1% linked to health and science sites.⁵ While social media has emerged as one of the most significant health information sources, it famously has only a few safeguards in place against medical misinformation. Requiring responsibility and regulations for accurate or evidence-based information walks a thin line on infringing freedom of speech. Medical misinformation related to COVID-19 has become as contagious as the virus itself.

In February 2020, the World Health Organization warned that a massive ‘Infodemic’ had accompanied the COVID-19 outbreak, with an overabundance of information, some accurate and some not, making it difficult for people to find reliable sources and trustworthy information.⁶ The Black immunity myth, groups opposing vaccines, campaigns against 5G mobile phone networks, suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered bioweapon, and online rumors leading to mob attacks in India and mass poisonings in Iran are some of the misleading health information that has circulated related to COVID-19.

In the Web 2.0 era, in which credible health information comes packaged with divisive and misleading information, social media’s full impact on health care, health outcomes, and mental health has yet to be explored. Social networks and media sharing networks have recently announced initiatives to stop misinformation and disinformation by fact-checking, flagging, issuing warnings, and deleting misinformation or misleading content. Providing links to more and correct information and partnering with health and science organizations can also encourage the spread of verifiable information.

While we have yet to see if social media safeguards are adequate, the medical community needs to proactively educate patients on the appropriate use of social media for health information, e-Health literacy, and media health literacy. Like health care providers evaluating scientific papers, we need to cultivate e-Patients’ ability to seek, evaluate, understand, and convey health information from electronic sources. Although the measurement and training tools for e-Health and media health literacy are still scarce, a good place to start could be to have simple conversations with patients. Encouraging patients to critically analyze online information, use credible social media sources, and recognizing the warnings, red flags, and links on unreliable information are some of the discussions worth considering. Equally important is to discourage patients from changing health behaviors or practices based on unverified social media resources and discussing the possible impact of medical misinformation.

A practical approach for e-Patients could be to ask the Five Ws, considered fundamental in information gathering: Who, What, Why, When, and Where.^7,8

• Who runs the website? Examine the authors, sponsors, and sources. Federal agencies’ website addresses end in “.gov,” educational institutions maintain “.edu,” large professional or nonprofit organizations often use “.org,” and commercial websites use “.com.”
• What is offered, and What is the evidence? Does it provide unbelievable solutions or quick, miracle cures?
• Why was the site created? Is the mission or goal to inform, explain, or sell health or medical products? Check details on “About This Site” or “About Us.”
• When was the information written or the webpage last updated?
• Where are the privacy policies? Is your privacy protected?

The anonymity of sources, sponsors, financial interests, or the lack of medical credentials and reputable medical research, the use of testimonials as evidence, outdated or incomplete information, and emotional or exaggerated language should raise suspicion about the reliability of the information. Tools like the online tutorial and a checklist from the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine can also be offered to e-Patients to learn how to evaluate health information online.^9,10

Online health support groups widely used by patients can be an additional layer of support but can also be a source of misinformation. Since they have fewer gatekeepers than traditional face-to-face communication, keeping a check on the credibility of the information can be difficult. Support groups affiliated with local hospitals or national organizations, or those endorsed by well-known scientific societies, can be encouraged instead of less credible sources. Some online support groups, run by non–health care professionals but with experienced and reliable scientific panels, can be useful resources. However, patients must check for the credibility and reliability of the information.

Lastly, just as hospitalists take a social history of our patients, we could also ask for a “social media history” to understand patients’ sources of health information. We can then guide them toward more credible sources to make them truly empowered medical consumers.
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Nelson R. Informatics: Empowering ePatients to drive health care reform - part I. Online J Issues Nurs. 2016 Sep 13;21(3):9.

2. Vosoughi S et al. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2012;359(6380):1146-51.

3. Fox S. The social life of health information. Pew Research Center: Fact Tank. 2014 Jan 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

4. Mitchel A, Jurkowitz M, Oliphant JB, Shearer E. Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable. Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jul 30. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

5. Stocking G, Matsa KE, Khuzam M. As COVID-19 Emerged in U.S., Facebook Posts About It Appeared in a Wide Range of Public Pages, Groups Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2020 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

6. Munich Security Conference. World Health Organization. 2020 Feb 15. Accessed 2020 Jul 31.

7. Levin-Zamir D, Bertschi I. Media health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the role of the social environment in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 3;15(8):1643.

8. Online Health Information: Is It Reliable? National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. 2018 Oct 31. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

9. How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers. Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. 2011 Jun 24. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.

10. Evaluating Internet Health Information: A Tutorial From the National Library of Medicine. Medline Plus. 2020 Mar 6. Accessed 2020 Aug 10.
 

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Whether they realize it or not, dermatologists play a key role in the physical transformation of transgender patients, according to Doris Day, MD.

While clinical management of this patient population has historically been limited to experts in mental health, endocrinology, and select surgeons with experience in sex reassignment surgery, “what dermatologists provide on an aesthetic level through noninvasive or minimally invasive procedures can have a big impact in helping that transformation,” Dr. Day, of the department of dermatology at New York University Langone Health, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “But, we have to go through a transformation of sorts as well as we care for these patients, because we need to help them in the way that best matches their needs. We need to know about their mental health and the medicines they’re taking as well as their goals for their outcomes. If they’re working with surgeons for sex reassignment, we should have discussions with those clinicians as well.”

Gender-affirming hormone therapy is the primary medical intervention sought by transgender people, she said. This allows the acquisition of secondary sex characteristics more aligned with their gender identity. Feminizing hormone therapy affects the skin by reducing sebaceous gland activity, “which can lead to fewer acne breakouts and smaller pores but also cause drier skin,” Dr. Day said. “We can slow down the growth of body and facial hair and we can perform hair removal treatments. We see decreased male-pattern scalp hair loss, and we see smoother skin as the fat under the skin becomes thicker and the pores become smaller. We can also have increased pigment production, which is always a good thing.”

In a 2016 survey of 327 transgender individuals led by Dr. Day’s mentee, Brian A. Ginsberg, MD, and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, most transgender women indicated that their face was most important to have changed, while for men it was the chest. Hair removal was the most common women’s facial procedure, followed by surgery then injectables, mostly performed by plastic surgeons.

Limitations of hormone therapy include the fact that it can take 2 or more years for associated changes to fully develop. “At least here in New York, patients want everything in a New York minute, so that’s always an issue,” she said. “We often recommend that patients wait at least 2 years after beginning hormone therapy before considering drastic feminization surgeries, but there are many options we have for them while they’re waiting for that. Even with hormone therapy, the bone structure of the face is unaffected, so we need to be artistic in creating a more feminized balance in order to help them physically match their gender to their identity.”

Noninvasive aesthetic procedures can compound the effects of hormone therapy, in addition to offering physical transformation beyond hormone therapy. She recalled assisting one of her patients transform from male to female. Over a period of 2 years, Dr. Day added Botox then Juvederm Voluma to the patient’s cheeks and chin, “and she started her transformation to a more feminized gender matching identity,” she said. Next came a hair transplant and the injection of more Voluma and fillers in the lips and cheeks on an as-needed basis.

“During one visit, I felt that we could still do more,” Dr. Day recalled. “She looked at me and said, ‘Actually, I feel so happy. This looks like me as I imagined I would look in my mind.’ I realized that my vision for her wasn’t the same as her vision for herself. She was thrilled with her transformation. I realized that as we see these patients, for all we learn about the science of gender transformation, the emotional aspects of our vision of what we can accomplish for our patients versus their vision of what their happiness level is may not entirely match. We have to be careful to help them celebrate their version of their femininity or masculinity, rather than trying to have our patients match what we think we can accomplish for them with our own sense of what femininity or masculinity is.”

Over time, Dr. Day said, the patient’s acne scars improved with fillers and microneedling treatments, and with the hormone therapy. “As we softened her appearance and as she made changes like the earrings that she wore and the hair style that she chose, she was in line with what her perception of her femininity was,” she said. “Little by little we’ve been watching her grow into her new self. It’s been a beautiful transformation. I was honored to be able to share in that journey with her.”

Dr. Day reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Whether they realize it or not, dermatologists play a key role in the physical transformation of transgender patients, according to Doris Day, MD.

While clinical management of this patient population has historically been limited to experts in mental health, endocrinology, and select surgeons with experience in sex reassignment surgery, “what dermatologists provide on an aesthetic level through noninvasive or minimally invasive procedures can have a big impact in helping that transformation,” Dr. Day, of the department of dermatology at New York University Langone Health, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “But, we have to go through a transformation of sorts as well as we care for these patients, because we need to help them in the way that best matches their needs. We need to know about their mental health and the medicines they’re taking as well as their goals for their outcomes. If they’re working with surgeons for sex reassignment, we should have discussions with those clinicians as well.”

Gender-affirming hormone therapy is the primary medical intervention sought by transgender people, she said. This allows the acquisition of secondary sex characteristics more aligned with their gender identity. Feminizing hormone therapy affects the skin by reducing sebaceous gland activity, “which can lead to fewer acne breakouts and smaller pores but also cause drier skin,” Dr. Day said. “We can slow down the growth of body and facial hair and we can perform hair removal treatments. We see decreased male-pattern scalp hair loss, and we see smoother skin as the fat under the skin becomes thicker and the pores become smaller. We can also have increased pigment production, which is always a good thing.”

In a 2016 survey of 327 transgender individuals led by Dr. Day’s mentee, Brian A. Ginsberg, MD, and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, most transgender women indicated that their face was most important to have changed, while for men it was the chest. Hair removal was the most common women’s facial procedure, followed by surgery then injectables, mostly performed by plastic surgeons.

Limitations of hormone therapy include the fact that it can take 2 or more years for associated changes to fully develop. “At least here in New York, patients want everything in a New York minute, so that’s always an issue,” she said. “We often recommend that patients wait at least 2 years after beginning hormone therapy before considering drastic feminization surgeries, but there are many options we have for them while they’re waiting for that. Even with hormone therapy, the bone structure of the face is unaffected, so we need to be artistic in creating a more feminized balance in order to help them physically match their gender to their identity.”

Noninvasive aesthetic procedures can compound the effects of hormone therapy, in addition to offering physical transformation beyond hormone therapy. She recalled assisting one of her patients transform from male to female. Over a period of 2 years, Dr. Day added Botox then Juvederm Voluma to the patient’s cheeks and chin, “and she started her transformation to a more feminized gender matching identity,” she said. Next came a hair transplant and the injection of more Voluma and fillers in the lips and cheeks on an as-needed basis.

“During one visit, I felt that we could still do more,” Dr. Day recalled. “She looked at me and said, ‘Actually, I feel so happy. This looks like me as I imagined I would look in my mind.’ I realized that my vision for her wasn’t the same as her vision for herself. She was thrilled with her transformation. I realized that as we see these patients, for all we learn about the science of gender transformation, the emotional aspects of our vision of what we can accomplish for our patients versus their vision of what their happiness level is may not entirely match. We have to be careful to help them celebrate their version of their femininity or masculinity, rather than trying to have our patients match what we think we can accomplish for them with our own sense of what femininity or masculinity is.”

Over time, Dr. Day said, the patient’s acne scars improved with fillers and microneedling treatments, and with the hormone therapy. “As we softened her appearance and as she made changes like the earrings that she wore and the hair style that she chose, she was in line with what her perception of her femininity was,” she said. “Little by little we’ve been watching her grow into her new self. It’s been a beautiful transformation. I was honored to be able to share in that journey with her.”

Dr. Day reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Whether they realize it or not, dermatologists play a key role in the physical transformation of transgender patients, according to Doris Day, MD.

While clinical management of this patient population has historically been limited to experts in mental health, endocrinology, and select surgeons with experience in sex reassignment surgery, “what dermatologists provide on an aesthetic level through noninvasive or minimally invasive procedures can have a big impact in helping that transformation,” Dr. Day, of the department of dermatology at New York University Langone Health, said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “But, we have to go through a transformation of sorts as well as we care for these patients, because we need to help them in the way that best matches their needs. We need to know about their mental health and the medicines they’re taking as well as their goals for their outcomes. If they’re working with surgeons for sex reassignment, we should have discussions with those clinicians as well.”

Gender-affirming hormone therapy is the primary medical intervention sought by transgender people, she said. This allows the acquisition of secondary sex characteristics more aligned with their gender identity. Feminizing hormone therapy affects the skin by reducing sebaceous gland activity, “which can lead to fewer acne breakouts and smaller pores but also cause drier skin,” Dr. Day said. “We can slow down the growth of body and facial hair and we can perform hair removal treatments. We see decreased male-pattern scalp hair loss, and we see smoother skin as the fat under the skin becomes thicker and the pores become smaller. We can also have increased pigment production, which is always a good thing.”

In a 2016 survey of 327 transgender individuals led by Dr. Day’s mentee, Brian A. Ginsberg, MD, and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, most transgender women indicated that their face was most important to have changed, while for men it was the chest. Hair removal was the most common women’s facial procedure, followed by surgery then injectables, mostly performed by plastic surgeons.

Limitations of hormone therapy include the fact that it can take 2 or more years for associated changes to fully develop. “At least here in New York, patients want everything in a New York minute, so that’s always an issue,” she said. “We often recommend that patients wait at least 2 years after beginning hormone therapy before considering drastic feminization surgeries, but there are many options we have for them while they’re waiting for that. Even with hormone therapy, the bone structure of the face is unaffected, so we need to be artistic in creating a more feminized balance in order to help them physically match their gender to their identity.”

Noninvasive aesthetic procedures can compound the effects of hormone therapy, in addition to offering physical transformation beyond hormone therapy. She recalled assisting one of her patients transform from male to female. Over a period of 2 years, Dr. Day added Botox then Juvederm Voluma to the patient’s cheeks and chin, “and she started her transformation to a more feminized gender matching identity,” she said. Next came a hair transplant and the injection of more Voluma and fillers in the lips and cheeks on an as-needed basis.

“During one visit, I felt that we could still do more,” Dr. Day recalled. “She looked at me and said, ‘Actually, I feel so happy. This looks like me as I imagined I would look in my mind.’ I realized that my vision for her wasn’t the same as her vision for herself. She was thrilled with her transformation. I realized that as we see these patients, for all we learn about the science of gender transformation, the emotional aspects of our vision of what we can accomplish for our patients versus their vision of what their happiness level is may not entirely match. We have to be careful to help them celebrate their version of their femininity or masculinity, rather than trying to have our patients match what we think we can accomplish for them with our own sense of what femininity or masculinity is.”

Over time, Dr. Day said, the patient’s acne scars improved with fillers and microneedling treatments, and with the hormone therapy. “As we softened her appearance and as she made changes like the earrings that she wore and the hair style that she chose, she was in line with what her perception of her femininity was,” she said. “Little by little we’ve been watching her grow into her new self. It’s been a beautiful transformation. I was honored to be able to share in that journey with her.”

Dr. Day reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com