Publications

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea is common among rural Veterans, however, access to diagnostic sleep testing, sleep specialists, and treatment devices is limited. To improve access to sleep care, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented a national sleep telemedicine program. The TeleSleep program components included: 1) virtual clinical encounters; 2) home sleep apnea testing; and 3) web application for Veterans and providers to remotely monitor symptoms, sleep quality and use of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. This study aimed to identify factors impacting Veteran's participation, satisfaction and experience with the TeleSleep program as part of a quality improvement initiative.

METHODS

Semi-structured interview questions elicited patient perspectives and preferences regarding accessing and engaging with TeleSleep care. Rapid qualitative and matrix analysis methods for health services research were used to organize and describe the qualitative data.

RESULTS

Thirty Veterans with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) recruited from 6 VA telehealth "hubs" participated in interviews. Veterans reported positive experiences with sleep telemedicine, including improvements in sleep quality, other health conditions, and quality of life. Access to care improved as a result of decreased travel burden and ability of both clinicians and Veterans to remotely monitor and track personal sleep data. Overall experiences with telehealth technology were positive. Veterans indicated a strong preference for VA over non-VA community-based sleep care. Patient recommendations for change included improving scheduling, continuity and timeliness of communication, and the equipment refill process.

CONCLUSIONS

The VA TeleSleep program improved patient experiences across multiple aspects of care including a reduction in travel burden, increased access to clinicians and remote monitoring, and patient-reported health and quality of life outcomes, though some communication and continuity challenges remain. Implementing telehealth services may also improve the experiences of patients served by other subspecialties or healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND

Early data suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a safe and efficacious option for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, there is a scarcity of data comparing outcomes with open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with GOO who underwent EUS-GE or OGJ between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included of which 40 (60.0%) underwent EUS-GE and 26 (40.0%) underwent OGJ. Baseline characteristics were similar with respect to age (70.5 vs 69.7, p = 0.81), sex (42.5% vs 42.3% female, p = 0.99), median length of follow-up (98.0 vs 166.5 days, p = 0.8), prior failed intervention for GOO (22.5% vs 26.9%, p = 0.68), and the presence of altered anatomy (12.5% vs 30.8%, p = 0.07) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) of EUS-GE and 26 (100%) of OGJ patients (p = 0.15). EUS-GE was associated with faster resumption of oral intake (1.3 vs 4.7 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (5 vs 14.5 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in symptom recurrence (17.5% vs 19.2%, HR 1.85, CI 0.52-6.65, p = 0.34), reintervention (20% vs 11.5%, HR 0.82, CI 0.22-3.15, p = 0.78), death within 30 days (12.5% vs 3.8%, HR 0.80, CI 0.09-6.85, p = 0.84), or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 24.1%, HR 1.69, CI 0.53-5.41, p = 0.37) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. EUS-GE patients initiated chemotherapy sooner (17.7 vs 31.3 days, p = 0.033) and had lower overall costs as compared to OGJ ($49,387 vs $124,192, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in technical or clinical success, symptom recurrence, reintervention, 30-day readmission, or 30-day mortality between EUS-GE and OGJ. EUS-GE patients experienced shorter delays to resumption of oral intake and chemotherapy, had shorter lengths of stay, and reduced hospital costs. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to verify our results.

The exact mechanism of coronavirus replication and transcription is not fully understood; however, a hallmark of coronavirus transcription is the generation of negative-sense RNA intermediates that serve as the templates for the synthesis of positive-sense genomic RNA (gRNA) and an array of subgenomic mRNAs (sgRNAs) encompassing sequences arising from discontinuous transcription. Existing PCR-based diagnostic assays for SAR-CoV-2 are qualitative or semi-quantitative and do not provide the resolution needed to assess the complex transcription dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 over the course of infection. We developed and validated a novel panel of specially designed SARS-CoV-2 ddPCR-based assays to map the viral transcription profile. Application of these assays to clinically relevant samples will enhance our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 replication and transcription and may also inform the development of improved diagnostic tools and therapeutics.

Highlights

We developed a novel panel of 7 quantitative RT-ddPCRs assays for SARS-Cov-2Our panel targets nongenic and genic regions in genomic and subgenomic RNAsAll assays detect 1-10 copies and are linear over 3-4 orders of magnitudeAll assays correlated with the clinical Abbott SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load AssayClinical samples showed higher copy numbers for targets at the 3' end of the genome.