Cannabis use associated with lower mortality among hospitalized Covid-19 patients using the national inpatient sample: an epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Prior reports indicate that modulation of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) may have a protective benefit for Covid-19 patients. However, associations between cannabis use (CU) or CU not in remission (active cannabis use (ACU)), and Covid-19-related outcomes among hospitalized patients is unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective observational cohort analysis of adults (≥ 18 years-old) identified from 2020 National Inpatient Sample database, we utilize multivariable regression analyses and propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to analyze trends and outcomes among Covid-19-related hospitalizations with CU and without CU (N-CU) for primary outcome of interest: Covid-19-related mortality; and secondary outcomes: Covid-19-related hospitalization, mechanical ventilation (MV), and acute pulmonary embolism (PE) compared to all-cause admissions; for CU vs N-CU; and for ACU vs N-ACU. RESULTS: There were 1,698,560 Covid-19-related hospitalizations which were associated with higher mortality (13.44% vs 2.53%, p ≤ 0.001) and worse secondary outcomes generally. Among all-cause hospitalizations, 1.56% of CU and 6.29% of N-CU were hospitalized with Covid-19 (p ≤ 0.001). ACU was associated with lower odds of MV, PE, and death among the Covid-19 population. On PSM, ACU(N(unweighted) = 2,382) was associated with 83.97% lower odds of death compared to others(N(unweighted) = 282,085) (2.77% vs 3.95%, respectively; aOR:0.16, [0.10-0.25], p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the ECS may represent a viable target for modulation of Covid-19. Additional studies are needed to further explore these findings.

Bariatric Surgery and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: National Trends and Outcomes Associated with Procedural Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Historical Bariatric Surgery Among US Hospitalized Patients 2009-2020.

PURPOSE: The association between bariatric surgery and IBD-related inpatient outcomes is not well characterized. We report, analyze, and compare inpatient trends and outcomes among encounters with a history of bariatric surgery (Hx-MBS) compared to those receiving bariatric surgery during index admission (PR-MBS) admitted from 2009 to 2020. METHODS: Retrospective cohort design: the 2009-2020 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases were used to identify hospital encounters with patients aged ≥ 18 years with a history of MBS (Hx-MBS) or with procedure coding indicating MBS procedure (PR-MBS) according to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth (ICD-9-CM/ ICD-9-PCS) or Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CM/ICD-10-PCS) Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System during index admission (ICD-9-CM: V4586; ICD-10-CM: Z9884; ICD-9-PR: 4382, 4389; ICD-10-PR: 0DB64Z3, 0DB63ZZ). Pearson χ2 analysis, analysis of variance, multivariable regression analyses, and propensity matching on independent variables were conducted to analyze significant associations between variables and for primary outcome inflammatory bowel disease-related admission, and secondary outcomes: diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or chronic mesenteric ischemia during admission. RESULTS: We identified 3,365,784 (76.20%) Hx-MBS hospitalizations and 1,050,900 hospitalizations with PR-MBS (23.80%). Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds of inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic mesenteric ischemia for Hx-MBS compared to PR-MBS, and significantly lower odds of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease for Hx-MBS compared to PR-MBS. CONCLUSION: In our study, Hx-MBS was associated with significantly increased odds of inflammatory bowel disease and other GI pathologies compared to matched controls. The mechanism by which this occurs is unclear. Additional studies are needed to examine these findings.

Opportunities to Increase Science of Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials: Equity and a Lack of a Control.

The United States witnessed a nearly 4-fold increase in personal health care expenditures between 1980 and 2010. Despite innovations and obvious benefits to health, participants enrolled in clinical trials still do not accurately represent the racial and ethnic composition of patients nationally or globally. This lack of diversity in cohorts limits the generalizability and significance of results among all populations and has deep repercussions for patient equity. To advance diversity in clinical trials, robust evidence for the most effective strategies for recruitment of diverse participants is needed. A major limitation of previous literature on clinical trial diversity is the lack of control or comparator groups for different strategies. To date, interventions have focused primarily on (1) community-based interventions, (2) institutional practices, and (3) digital health systems. This review article outlines prior intervention strategies across these 3 categories and considers health policy and ethical incentives for substantiation before US Food and Drug Administration approval. There are no current studies that comprehensively compare these interventions against one another. The American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network on the Science of Diversity in Clinical Trials represents a multicenter, collaborative network between Stanford School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine created to understand the barriers to diversity in clinical trials by contemporaneous head-to-head interventional strategies accessing digital, institutional, and community-based recruitment strategies to produce informed recruitment strategies targeted to improve underrepresented patient representation in clinical trials.