Recent Publications by CFE Educators

OBJECTIVE

Little is known regarding the reactogenicity and related SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID). Our objective was to characterize the adverse event profile of CID patients following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and understand the relationship between reactogenicity and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

METHODS

CID patients and healthy controls eligible to receive messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines participated in 3 study visits (pre-vaccine, after dose 1, and after dose 2) in which blood and clinical data were collected. Assessment of adverse events were solicited within 7 days of receiving each dose. Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG ± antibody titers were quantified following vaccination. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing mixed models and tobit regressions, with adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

The present study included 441 participants (322 CID patients and 119 control subjects). Compared to controls, CID patients reported greater symptom severity after dose 1 (P = 0.0001), including more myalgia and fatigue (P  0.05). For immunogenicity, a higher symptom severity after dose 1 and a higher number of symptoms after dose 2 was associated with higher antibody titers (P ≤ 0.05). Each increase of 1 symptom was associated with a 15.1% increase in antibody titer. Symptom association was strongest with site pain after dose 1 (105%; P = 0.03) and fatigue after dose 2 (113%; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Patients with CID have a distinct reactogenicity profile following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared to controls. Furthermore, there is an association between increased reactogenicity and increased vaccine response. This finding may speak to the more variable immunogenicity in CID patients and may be an important indicator of vaccine response to the novel SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly increased telehealth usage in the United States. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face barriers to health care, which may be mitigated when providers work with professional interpreters. However, telehealth may exacerbate disparities if clinicians are not trained to work with interpreters in that setting. Although medical students are now involved in telehealth on an unprecedented scale, no educational innovations have been published that focus on digital care across language barriers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate advanced medical students' confidence in caring for patients with LEP during telehealth encounters.

METHODS

We administered a written survey to medical students on clinical clerkships at one US institution in August and September 2020. We assessed students' overall confidence in working with interpreters; confidence in performing 8 clinical tasks during in-person versus telehealth encounters; and frequency of performing 5 different clinical tasks with patients with LEP compared to English-speaking patients during in-person versus telehealth encounters. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and chi-square tests were used to compare confidence and task performance frequency, respectively, for patients with LEP versus English-speaking patients during telehealth encounters. Students were also asked to identify barriers to care for patients with LEP. The free-response questions were qualitatively analyzed using open coding to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Of 300 medical students surveyed, 121 responded. Furthermore, 72 students answered >50% of questions and were included in the analyses. Compared to caring for patients with LEP during in-person encounters, respondents were less confident in working with interpreters (P.001), developing trust (P.001), identifying agenda (P=.005), eliciting preferences for diabetes management (P=.01), and empowering patients in lifestyle modifications (P=.04) during telehealth encounters. During both in-person and telehealth encounters, approximately half of students (40%-78%) reported engaging less frequently in every clinical task with patients with LEP and this was as low as 22% (13/59) for some tasks. Students identified these key barriers to care for patients with LEP: time pressure, interpretation quality and access, technical difficulties, cultural differences, and difficulty with rapport building.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced medical students were significantly less confident caring for patients with LEP via telehealth than in person. Broader implementation of training around navigating language barriers is necessary for telehealth care, which has rapidly expanded in the United States. Our study identified potential key areas for curricular focus, including creating patient-centered agendas and management plans within the constraints of virtual settings. These developments must take place simultaneously with systems-level improvements in interpreter infrastructure to ensure high-quality care for linguistically diverse patients.