Impact of Electronic Chronic Pain Questions on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization, and attitudes toward eCPQ use among patients and physicians: prospective pragmatic study in a US general practice setting

OBJECTIVE: The Electronic Chronic Pain Questions (eCPQ) has been developed to help healthcare providers systematically capture chronic pain data. This study evaluated the impact of using the eCPQ on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in a primary care setting, and patient and physician perceptions regarding use of, and satisfaction with, the eCPQ. METHODS: This was a prospective pragmatic study conducted at the Internal Medicine clinic within the Henry Ford Health (HFH) Detroit campus between June 2017 and April 2020. Patients (aged ≥18 years) attending the clinic for chronic pain were allocated to an Intervention Group to complete the eCPQ in addition to regular care, or a control group to receive regular care only. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and a Patient Global Assessment were assessed at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months study visits. HCRU data were extracted from the HFH database. Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted with randomly selected patients and physicians who used the eCPQ. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were enrolled, 79 in each treatment group completed all 3 study visits. No significant differences (p \u3e 0.05) were found in PROs and HCRU between the 2 groups. In qualitative interviews, physicians and patients reported the eCPQ as useful, and using the eCPQ improved patient-clinician interactions. CONCLUSION: Adding the eCPQ to regular care for patients with chronic pain did not significantly impact the PROs assessed in this study. However, qualitative interviews suggested that the eCPQ was a well-accepted and potentially useful tool from a patient and physician perspective. By using the eCPQ, patients were better prepared when they attended a primary care visit for their chronic pain and the quality of patient-physician communication was increased

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health