Ikponmwosa Osaghae

Claims‐based analyses can suffer from residual and unmeasured confounding due to factors that are poorly captured in claims. Some of these factors may be measured in other data sources, such as in structured fields of electronic health records (EHR), for example, laboratory test results, or in free‐text physician notes. We conducted a proof‐of‐principle study to demonstrate a process for evaluating the potential risk of confounding—factors poorly captured in claims data but measurable in the EHR as part of drug safety surveillance activities. In future practical applications, this approach could be used along with other sensitivity analyses to evaluate potential residual confounding (e.g., E ‐values, negative controls). We used claims‐EHR linked data from the Mass General Brigham site of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Sentinel Real World Evidence Data Enterprise. We extracted a cohort that was previously used in a prototypical Sentinel claims‐based query that compared initiators of sacubitril‐valsartan vs. angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of angioedema. In this cohort, we used EHR data to characterize angioedema risk factors poorly captured in claims and observed that claims‐based proxies balanced most risk factors that were measurable only in EHR data. While quantitative bias analysis methods can be used to adjust for residual confounding using external information on magnitude and direction of bias, this was deemed unnecessary for this example due to the observed balance achieved on risk factors for angioedema measured in the EHR. A robust linked EHR‐claims data infrastructure is crucial for routine application of these methods to evaluate and mitigate residual confounding in drug safety surveillance studies.

Background: We examined the awareness, interest, and information sources relating to cannabis use for cancer management (including management of cancer symptoms and treatment‐related side effects) and determined factors associated with cancer survivors' awareness and interest in learning about cannabis use for cancer management.Methods: This was a cross‐sectional study of adult cancer survivors (N = 1886) receiving treatment at a comprehensive cancer center. Weighted prevalence and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted.Results: Among cancer survivors, 88% were aware and 60% were interested in learning about cannabis use for cancer management. Common sources of information to learn about cannabis use for cancer management were cancer doctors/nurses (82%), other patients with cancer (27%), websites/blogs (26%), marijuana stores (20%), and family/friends (18%). The odds of being aware of cannabis use for cancer management was lower among male compared to female survivors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41–0.90), non‐Hispanic Blacks compared to non‐Hispanic Whites (AOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.21–0.62), and survivors who do not support the legalization of cannabis for medical use compared to those who do (AOR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.04–0.23). On the other hand, the odds of being interested in cannabis use for cancer management was higher among non‐Hispanic Blacks compared to non‐Hispanic Whites (AOR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.04–2.62), and among cancer survivors actively undergoing cancer treatment compared to patients on non‐active treatment (AOR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.74–2.91).Conclusion: Awareness of cannabis use for cancer management is high within the cancer survivor population. Results indicated health care providers are leading information source and should receive continued medical education on cannabis‐specific guidelines. Similarly, tailored educational interventions are needed to guide survivors on the benefits and risks of cannabis use for cancer management.

Despite growing interest in the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer-related symptoms, there are limited studies that have assessed the use pattern, type, and mode of delivery of cannabis products used by cancer survivors. This study describes the current state of the use pattern, product type, and mode of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors. This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors from 41 U.S. states who received treatment at the largest NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The weighted prevalence of the use patterns, product types, and modes of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors was estimated. A total of 1886 cancer survivors were included in the study, with 915 (48% [95% CI: 45–51]) reporting ever using cannabis. Of survivors who had ever used cannabis, 36% (95% CI: 33–40) were current users. Among survivors who reported cannabis use after diagnosis, 40% used cannabis during and after cancer treatment, 35% used cannabis during treatment, and 25% used cannabis after completing their cancer treatment. Additionally, 48% of survivors reported an increase in cannabis use since cancer diagnosis. The commonest types of cannabis products used by cancer survivors were dry leaf cannabis (71%), cannabidiol (CBD) oil (46%), and cannabis candy (40%). Moreover, cancer survivors frequently used baked goods (32%), creams and gels (21%), and tinctures (18%). Furthermore, among ever users, the predominant mode of use was cannabis inhalation/smoking (69%) compared to eating/drinking (59%). More so, the common mode of inhalation/smoking of cannabis products were rolled cannabis cigarettes (79%), pipes (36%), water pipes (34%), vaporizers or vapes (14%), and e-cigarette devices (14%). A substantial number of cancer survivors use cannabis during cancer treatment, with increased use following cancer diagnosis. The forms and modes of delivery of cannabis varied among survivors, with most survivors inhaling or smoking cannabis. There is a need to educate healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors on current evidence of cannabis use and strengthen cannabis regulatory frameworks to optimize benefits and minimize adverse events from cannabis use during cancer treatment.

Background: HPV vaccine hesitancy is a key contributor to the sub-optimal HPV vaccination uptake in the United States. We aimed to determine the association between healthcare providers’ self-efficacy in HPV vaccination hesitancy counseling and HPV vaccination acceptance after initial and follow-up counseling sessions. Methods: Population-based cross-sectional study of healthcare providers (HCPs) practicing in Texas. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the odds of HPV vaccination acceptance by vaccine-hesitant patients. Additionally, generalized estimating equations were used to compare HPV vaccination acceptance by hesitant patients after follow-up versus initial counseling sessions. Results: 1283 HCPs completed the survey with a mean (SD) age of 47.1 (11.3) years. HCPs who believed that they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV-vaccine-hesitant parents had higher odds of observing HPV vaccination acceptance very often/always after an initial counseling session (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.50; 95% CI: 2.25–5.44) and after follow-up counseling sessions (AOR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.66–4.00) compared to HCPs that perceived they were not at all/somewhat/moderately confident. The odds of HPV vaccination being accepted very often/always by vaccine-hesitant parents was 61% (AOR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.32–1.95) higher after follow-up counseling sessions compared to an initial counseling session. The results were similar for the counseling of HPV-vaccine-hesitant adult patients. Conclusions: The confidence level of HCPs in counseling hesitant parents and adult patients impacts HPV vaccination acceptance. Importantly, acceptance was higher after follow-up counseling sessions than initial counseling sessions. HCPs should receive training in HPV vaccination counseling to enhance their confidence in counseling hesitant patients and should utilize every visit to counsel hesitant patients.

HPV vaccine hesitancy is a key barrier to HPV vaccination. Using a population-based survey of HCPs practicing in Texas we determined the association between formal training of HCPs and perceived self-efficacy in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients. A total of 1283 HCPs completed the survey, with 879 providing vaccination services to pediatric patients and 1018 providing vaccination services to adult patients. Among HCPs included in this study, 405 of 577 (70%) and 315 of 505 (62%) perceived they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients, respectively. Compared to HCPs who received no training, those who received formal training in HPV vaccination promotion or counseling had 2.56 (AOR: 2.56; 95% CI:1.69–3.86) and 2.84 times higher odds (AOR: 2.84; 95% CI:1.87–4.33) of perceiving that they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients, respectively. Additionally, increasing years of practice and volume of patients seen were positively associated with being very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients. On the other hand, nurses were less likely than physicians to be very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents. To increase HPV vaccination uptake, HCPs should receive tailored training to improve their self-efficacy in addressing HPV vaccine-hesitancy.

Healthcare provider (HCP) recommendation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is crucial for HPV vaccination acceptance and uptake. It is unclear to what extent the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the recommendation and acceptance of HPV vaccination. HCPs practicing in Texas were invited to complete an online survey between January and April 2021. This population-based survey examined the association between HPV vaccination recommendation by HCPs and their observed changes in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the total 715 HCPs included in this study, 13.9% reported a decrease, 8.7% reported an increase, and 77.5% reported no change in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the HCPs who never/sometimes recommend HPV vaccination, those who often/always recommend HPV vaccination were less likely to observe a decrease (12.3% vs. 22.1%) and more likely to observe an increase in HPV vaccination (9.1% vs. 6.2%), during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, those who provided recommendations often/always had 46% (odds ratio: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.30–0.96) lower odds of reporting a decrease in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study adds to prior evidence of the positive influence of provider recommendations on HPV vaccination acceptance despite the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention services.

Objectives To document lessons from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) by determining factors associated with successful surveillance programme globally as well as at national and subnational levels. The process of conducting surveillance has been previously recognised in the literature as important for the success of polio surveillance activities. Design A cross-sectional survey with closed and open-ended questions. Settings Survey of persons involved in the implementation of surveillance activities under the GPEI at the global level and in seven low-income and middle-income countries. Participants Individuals (n=802) with ≥12 months of experience implementing surveillance objective of the GPEI between 1988 and 2019. Main outcome measures and methods Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance programme. Horizontal analysis was used to analyse qualitative free-text responses on facilitators and barriers identified for conducting surveillance activities successfully. Results Overall, participants who reported challenges relating to GPEI programme characteristics had 50% lower odds of reporting implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (adjusted OR (AOR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.85). Challenges were mainly perceptions of external intervention source (ie, surveillance perceived as ‘foreign’ to local communities) and the complexity of surveillance processes (ie, surveillance required several intricate steps). Those who reported organisational challenges were almost two times more likely to report implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (AOR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.31) overall, and over threefolds (AOR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.14 to 9.66) at the national level. Conclusions Programme characteristics may have impeded the process of conducting surveillance under the GPEI, while organisational characteristics may have facilitated the process. Future surveillance programmes should be designed with inputs from local communities and frontline implementers.

The 9-valent human papillomavirus (9-vHPV) vaccine uptake rate among adolescents has improved over the years; however, little is known about the adherence to the recommended dosing schedule. This study examines the prevalence and factors associated with adherence to the recommended 9vHPV vaccination dosing schedule among adolescents aged 13 to 17 years. The cross-sectional study was conducted using the 2019–2020 National Immunization Survey-Teen. The parents of 34,619 adolescents were included in our analyses. The overall up-to-date (UTD) prevalence was 57.1%. The UTD prevalence was 60.0% among females and 54.2% among males. Adolescents aged 16 years had the highest UTD prevalence of 63.0%. The UTD prevalence was 61.6% among Hispanics and 54.7% among non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, compared to females, males had 14% lower odds of UTD. The odds of UTD were 1.91 times, 2.08 times, and 1.98 times higher among adolescents aged 15–17 years, respectively, compared to those aged 13 years. Moreover, region, poverty, insurance status, mothers’ educational level, and provider recommendation were associated with UTD. Our findings show that adherence to the recommended 9vHPV vaccine schedule is low in the US. Targeted public health efforts are needed to improve the rates of adherence to the recommended 9vHPV dose schedule.

Equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine remains a public health priority. This study explores the association between ZIP Code–Tabulation Area level Social Vulnerability Indices (SVI) and COVID-19 vaccine coverage in Texas. A mixed-effects, multivariable, random-intercept negative binomial model was used to explore the association between ZIP Code–Tabulation Area level SVI and COVID-19 vaccination coverage stratified by the availability of a designated vaccine access site. Lower COVID-19 vaccine coverage was observed in ZIP codes with the highest overall SVIs (adjusted mean difference (aMD) = −13, 95% CI, −23.8 to −2.1, p < 0.01), socioeconomic characteristics theme (aMD = −16.6, 95% CI, −27.3 to −5.7, p = 0.01) and housing and transportation theme (aMD = −18.3, 95% CI, −29.6 to −7.1, p < 0.01) compared with the ZIP codes with the lowest SVI scores. The vaccine coverage was lower in ZIP Code–Tabulation Areas with higher median percentages of Hispanics (aMD = −3.3, 95% CI, −6.5 to −0.1, p = 0.04) and Blacks (aMD = −3.7, 95% CI, −6.4 to −1, p = 0.01). SVI negatively impacted COVID-19 vaccine coverage in Texas. Access to vaccine sites did not address disparities related to vaccine coverage among minority populations. These findings are relevant to guide the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in regions with similar demographic and geospatial characteristics.