Predictors of change in code status from time of admission to death in critically ill surgical patients

Racial and gender disparities in end-of-life decision-making practices have not been well described in surgical patients. We performed an eight-year retrospective analysis of surgical patients within the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Outcomes database. ICU patients with documented admission code status, and death or ICU discharge code status, respectively, were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess change in code status. Of 468,000 ICU patients, 97,968 (20.9%) were surgical, 63,567 (95%) survived, and 3,343 (5%) died during their hospitalization. Of those, 50,915 (80.1%) and 2,625 (78.5%) had complete code status data on admission and discharge or death, respectively. Women were less likely than men to remain full code at ICU discharge and death (n 5 20,940, 95.6% and n 5 141, 11.9% vs n 5 29,320, 97.4% and n 5 233, 16.3%, P < 0.001). Compared with whites, blacks and other minorities had a 0.46 odds (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33–0.64, P < 0.001) and 0.54 odds (95% CI: 0.34–0.85, P 5 0.01) of changing from full code status before death, respectively. Before ICU discharge, blacks and other minorities had a 0.56 odds of changing from full code status when compared with whites (95% CI: 0.40–0.79, P < 0.001 vs 95% CI: 0.36–0.87, P 5 0.01, respectively). Women were more likely to be discharged or die after a change in code status from full code (odds ratio 1.27, 95% CI: 1.06–1.07, P < 0.001 odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09–1.79, P 5 0.009). Men and minorities are more likely to be discharged from the ICU or die with a full code status designation

Racial Disparities at Mixed-Race and Minority Hospitals: Treatment of African American Males With High-Grade Splenic Injuries

INTRODUCTION: Racial and socioeconomic disparities in health access and outcomes for many conditions are well known. However, for time-sensitive high-acuity diseases such as traumatic injuries, disparities in access and outcomes should be significantly diminished. Our primary objective was to characterize racial disparities across majority, mixed-race, and minority hospitals for African American (AA) versus white males with high-grade splenic injuries. METHODS: Data from the National Trauma Data Bank was utilized from 2007 to 2015. A total of 24 855 AA or white males with high-grade splenic injuries were included. Multilevel mixed effects regression analysis was used to evaluate disparities in outcomes and resource allocation. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly higher for AA males at mixed-race (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% CI 1.3-2.1; P < .001) and minority (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5-3.0; P < .001) hospitals, but not at majority hospitals. At minority hospitals, AA males were significantly less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.49-0.97; P = .04) and experienced a significantly longer time to surgery (IRR 1.5; P = .02). Minority hospitals were significantly more likely to have failures from angiographic embolization requiring operative intervention (OR 2.2; P = .009). At both types of nonmajority hospitals, AA males with penetrating injuries were more likely to be managed with angiography (mixed-race hospitals: OR 1.7; P = .046 vs minority hospitals: OR 1.6; P = .08). DISCUSSION: While multiple studies have shown that minority hospitals have increased mortality compared to majority hospitals, this study found this disparity only existed for AAs

Characterizing COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and associated comorbidities and complication profiles

Purpose Heterogeneity has been observed in outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identification of clinical phenotypes may facilitate tailored therapy and improve outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify specific clinical phenotypes across COVID-19 patients and compare admission characteristics and outcomes. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients from March 7, 2020 to August 25, 2020 at 14 U.S. hospitals. Ensemble clustering was performed on 33 variables collected within 72 hours of admission. Principal component analysis was performed to visualize variable contributions to clustering. Multinomial regression models were fit to compare patient comorbidities across phenotypes. Multivariable models were fit to estimate associations between phenotype and in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes. Results The database included 1,022 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Three clinical phenotypes were identified (I, II, III), with 236 [23.1%] patients in phenotype I, 613 [60%] patients in phenotype II, and 173 [16.9%] patients in phenotype III. Patients with respiratory comorbidities were most commonly phenotype III (p = 0.002), while patients with hematologic, renal, and cardiac (all p<0.001) comorbidities were most commonly phenotype I. Adjusted odds of respiratory, renal, hepatic, metabolic (all p<0.001), and hematological (p = 0.02) complications were highest for phenotype I. Phenotypes I and II were associated with 7.30- fold (HR:7.30, 95% CI:(3.11-17.17), p<0.001) and 2.57-fold (HR:2.57, 95% CI:(1.10-6.00), p = 0.03) increases in hazard of death relative to phenotype III. Conclusion We identified three clinical COVID-19 phenotypes, reflecting patient populations with different comorbidities, complications, and clinical outcomes. Future research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical practice and trial design

Shining a light on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2

Background The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has stunned the world, financial markets, and healthcare systems. Researchers are rushing to identify effective treatments while maintaining rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Clinicians are doing their best to provide evidence-based care in a setting of very little good evidence. To date, no effective treatments exist for COVID-19 management. Unfortunately, traditional and social media coupled with world leader commentary have led some to believe hydroxychloroquine offers a bona fide cure and even prevention. The purpose of this commentary is to review the medical literature related to hydroxychloroquine building on knowledge over the past 17 years since the 2003 SARS-CoV epidemic

Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated With a Lower Viral Load and Likelihood of Systemic Symptoms

Background: Data conflict on whether vaccination decreases severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load. The objective of this analysis was to compare baseline viral load and symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults enrolled in a randomized trial of outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. Methods: Baseline data from the first 433 sequential participants enrolling into the COVID-OUT trial were analyzed. Adults aged 30-85 with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 were eligible within 3 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and <7 days of symptoms. Log10 polymerase chain reaction viral loads were normalized to human RNase P by vaccination status, by time from vaccination, and by symptoms. Results: Two hundred seventy-four participants with known vaccination status contributed optional nasal swabs for viral load measurement: median age, 46 years; median (interquartile range) BMI 31.2 (27.4-36.4) kg/m2. Overall, 159 (58%) were women, and 217 (80%) were White. The mean relative log10 viral load for those vaccinated <6 months from the date of enrollment was 0.11 (95% CI, -0.48 to 0.71), which was significantly lower than the unvaccinated group (P = .01). Those vaccinated ≥6 months before enrollment did not differ from the unvaccinated with respect to viral load (mean, 0.99; 95% CI, -0.41 to 2.40; P = .85). The vaccinated group had fewer moderate/severe symptoms of subjective fever, chills, myalgias, nausea, and diarrhea (all P < .05). Conclusions: These data suggest that vaccination within 6 months of infection is associated with a lower viral load, and vaccination was associated with a lower likelihood of having systemic symptoms

Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19

BACKGROUND Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARSCoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications. RESULTS A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P=0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P=0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P=0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine. CONCLUSIONS None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19