Effect of Race and Ethnicity on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with COVID-19.

Objective: To identify differences in short-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to various racial/ethnic groups. Design: Analysis of Cerner de-identified COVID-19 dataset. Setting: A total of 62 health care facilities. Participants: The cohort included 49,277 adult COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized from December 1, 2019 to November 13, 2020. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was non-routine discharge (discharge to destinations other than home, such as short-term hospitals or other facilities including intermediate care and skilled nursing homes). Methods: We compared patients' age, gender, individual components of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities, medical complications, use of do-not-resuscitate, use of palliative care, and socioeconomic status between various racial and/or ethnic groups. We further compared the rates of in-hospital mortality and non-routine discharges between various racial and/or ethnic groups. Results: Compared with White patients, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among African American (OR 1.5; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), Hispanic (OR1.4; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), and Asian or Pacific Islander (OR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.1-1.9, P=.002) patients after adjustment for age and gender, Elixhauser comorbidities, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions: Our study found that, among hospitalized patients with COVID-2019, African American, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander patients had increased mortality compared with White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and do-not-resuscitate/palliative care status. Our findings add additional perspective to other recent studies.

Reactions to FDA-Proposed Graphic Warning Labels Affixed to U.S. Smokers' Cigarette Packs.

INTRODUCTION: Graphic warning labels have been shown to be more effective than text-only labels in increasing attention and perceived health risks, but most U.S. studies have involved single exposures in laboratory or Internet settings. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample (N = 202) of U.S. adult smokers from population subgroups with higher rates of smoking and smoking-related deaths who had participated in a larger survey about graphic warning labels. Participants were randomized to get 1 of 9 graphic + text labels or a text-only label. Research staff affixed a warning label sticker to participants' cigarette pack(s) at enrollment. Color graphic labels covered slightly more than the lower half of packs. Black and white labels of current U.S. text-only warnings covered the existing side warning to prompt attention to the label (i.e., attention control). Participants received extra stickers of the same label for subsequent packs, and completed 3 telephone interviews in 1 week. RESULTS: Participants reported low avoidance (<34%) and consistent use of the stickers (91%). Smokers consistently paid more attention to graphic than text-only labels. Only 5 of the 9 graphic warning labels were significantly associated with greater thoughts of health risks. Thinking about quitting and stopping smoking did not differ by label. Qualitative data illustrated differences in the "stickiness," self-referencing, and counterarguments of graphic warning labels. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. smokers' reactions to graphic warning labels on their own packs were similar to other, more controlled studies. Qualitative findings underscore the need for warning labels that encourage self-referential processing without increasing defensive reactions.