Trends in telemedicine visits among pediatric asthma patients during COVID-19

Background

Environmental and social factors, including lack of access to asthma care, contribute to persistent inequities in asthma outcomes among children from historically marginalized ethnoracial groups. Telemedicine, which expanded rapidly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, may be an approach to augment access to pediatric asthma care.

Objectives

We sought to describe characteristics of pediatric (0-17 years) telemedicine users with asthma and characterize use trends throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data of pediatric patients with asthma seen at University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center between March 2019 to March 2022 describing telemedicine user characteristics, trends of asthma-related telemedicine use, and associations between user characteristics and having a telemedicine visit.

Results

Among 6,777 patients with asthma, the percentage of asthma-related telemedicine visits peaked early in the pandemic, comprising 74.3% of visits, before decreasing to 13.6% in 2022. Compared to White patients, Black patients had lower odds of an asthma telemedicine visit (odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26, 0.94). Those with public insurance (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.19, 2.43), severe persistent asthma (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.70, 5.42), or comorbidities (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.08, 2.33) had higher odds. Time to first emergency department visit and hospitalization comparing those with at least one telemedicine visit to those with none were similar.

Conclusions

More pediatric asthma patients are using telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly those with medical complexity and comorbidities, and outcomes appear similar. However, Black patients at our institution have lower odds of using telemedicine.

Use of dexamethasone in idiopathic, acute pediatric rhabdomyolysis

Current rhabdomyolysis treatment guidelines vary based on the etiology and diagnosis, yet many cases evade conclusive diagnosis. In these cases, treatment options remain largely limited to fluids and supportive therapy. We present two cases of acute rhabdomyolysis diagnosed in the emergency department: a 5-year-old boy with sudden onset bilateral flank pain, and a 13-year-old boy with 2-3 days of worsening pectoral and shoulder pain. Each patient had a prior similar episode requiring hospitalization in the past. The 5-year-old had no inciting trauma or trigger, medication use, or illness. The 13-year-old previously had an upper respiratory infection during the week prior and had been strenuously exercising at the time of onset. Genetic testing results were unknown for both patients during their hospitalizations, and insurance and other barriers led to delay. Later results for the first patient revealed a heterozygous deletion in intron 19 on the LPIN1 gene interpreted as a variant of unknown significance. During their hospitalizations, both children were started on intravenous (i.v.) fluids, and creatine kinase (CK) initially trended downward, but then began to rise or plateau. After reviewing the cases, prior literature, and anecdotal evidence of benefit from corticosteroid therapy in rhabdomyolysis with our consultant metabolic physicians, dexamethasone was initiated. In both patients, dexamethasone use correlated with relief of patient symptoms, significantly decreased CK value, and our ability to discharge these patients home quickly. Our cases, discussion, and literature review all lead to the consideration of the use of dexamethasone in conjunction with standard therapy for acute rhabdomyolysis.

Barriers to Firearm Injury Research

INTRODUCTION

Firearm injuries and motor vehicle injuries are 2 leading causes of fatal injury in the U.S., each accounting for approximately 35,000 deaths annually. Research on firearm injuries is under-represented compared with research on motor vehicle collisions. This study seeks to identify perceived barriers to firearm injury research versus motor vehicle injury research.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods survey of corresponding authors of a minimum of 1 study, archived in PubMed, related to firearm injury or motor vehicle injury between 2014 and 2018. Analyses were performed in 2019. Electronic surveys included both closed- and open-ended questions to assess barriers to research. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify differences in perceptions to barriers between the 2 groups. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses was performed through inductive derivation of themes.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to 113 firearm injury researchers (42% response rate) and 241 motor vehicle injury researchers (31.5% response rate). After adjustment, firearm injury researchers were less likely to cite institutional support (AOR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1, 0.8) as a factor contributing to their success, than motor vehicle injury researchers. Firearm injury researchers were more likely to report fear of personal threats (AOR=10.4, 95% CI=2.4, 44.4) and experiencing personal threats (AOR=16.1, 95% CI=1.6, 165.4). Thematic analysis revealed 4 themes: career, political, funding, and harassment.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with motor vehicle injury researchers, firearm injury researchers are significantly more likely to report limited support and threats to personal safety as barriers to research. Further research to understand the impact of these barriers and methods to overcome them is needed.