Sample average treatment effect on the treated (SATT) analysis using counterfactual explanation identifies BMT and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as protective risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity and survival in patients with multiple myeloma.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM), an age-dependent neoplasm of antibody-producing plasma cells, have compromised immune systems and might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. This study characterizes risk factors associated with clinical indicators of COVID-19 severity and all-cause mortality in myeloma patients utilizing NCATS' National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database. The N3C consortium is a large, centralized data resource representing the largest multi-center cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls nationwide (>16 million total patients, and >6 million confirmed COVID-19+ cases to date). Our cohort included myeloma patients (both inpatients and outpatients) within the N3C consortium who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 based on positive PCR or antigen tests or ICD-10-CM diagnosis code. The outcomes of interest include all-cause mortality (including discharge to hospice) during the index encounter and clinical indicators of severity (i.e., hospitalization/emergency department/ED visit, use of mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)). Finally, causal inference analysis was performed using the Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM) and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) methods. As of 05/16/2022, the N3C consortium included 1,061,748 cancer patients, out of which 26,064 were MM patients (8,588 were COVID-19 positive). The mean age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 65.89 years, 46.8% were females, and 20.2% were of black race. 4.47% of patients died within 30 days of COVID-19 hospitalization. Overall, the survival probability was 90.7% across the course of the study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed histories of pulmonary and renal disease, dexamethasone, proteasome inhibitor/PI, immunomodulatory/IMiD therapies, and severe Charlson Comorbidity Index/CCI were significantly associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Protective associations were observed with blood-or-marrow transplant/BMT and COVID-19 vaccination. Further, multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that high and moderate CCI levels, International Staging System (ISS) moderate or severe stage, and PI therapy were associated with worse survival, while BMT and COVID-19 vaccination were associated with lower risk of death. Finally, matched sample average treatment effect on the treated (SATT) confirmed the causal effect of BMT and vaccination status as top protective factors associated with COVID-19 risk among US patients suffering from multiple myeloma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest nationwide study on myeloma patients with COVID-19.

Cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: No study has compared the cardiovascular outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) head-to-head against other glucose-lowering therapies, including dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DDP4i) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-which also have cardiovascular benefits-in patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service data (2013-2019) were used to create four pair-wise comparison cohorts of type 2 diabetes patients with: (1a) HFrEF initiating SGLT2i versus DPP4i; (1b) HFrEF initiating SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA; (2a) HFpEF initiating SGLT2i versus DPP4i; and (2b) HFpEF initiating SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA. The primary outcomes were (1) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and (2) myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke hospitalizations. Adjusted hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among HFrEF patients, initiation of SGLT2i versus DPP4i (cohort 1a; n = 13,882) was associated with a lower risk of HHF (adjusted Hazard Ratio [HR (95% confidence interval)], 0.67 (0.63, 0.72) and MI or stroke (HR: 0.86 [0.75, 0.99]), and initiation of SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA (cohort 1b; n = 6951) was associated with lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.86 [0.79, 0.93]), but not MI or stroke (HR: 1.02 [0.85, 1.22]). Among HFpEF patients, initiation of SGLT2i versus DPP4i (cohort 2a; n = 17,493) was associated with lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.65 [0.61, 0.69]) but not MI or stroke (HR: 0.90 [0.79, 1.02]), and initiation of SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA (cohort 2b; n = 9053) was associated with lower risk of HHF (0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), but not MI or stroke (HR: 0.97 [0.83, 1.14]). Results were robust across range of secondary outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality) and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Bias from residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Use of SGLT2i was associated with reduced risk of HHF against DPP4i and GLP-1RA, reduced risk of MI or stroke against DPP4i within the HFrEF subgroup, and comparable risk of MI or stroke against GLP-1RA. Notably, the magnitude of cardiovascular benefit conferred by SGLT2i was similar among patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

Validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 Diagnosis Codes for Identification of Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization and Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction in a National Medicare Sample.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older adults. Medicare data have been used to assess HF outcomes. However, the validity of ICD-10 diagnosis codes (used since 2015) to identify acute HF hospitalization or distinguish reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown in Medicare data. METHODS: Using Medicare data (2015-2017), we randomly sampled 200 HF hospitalizations with ICD-10 diagnosis codes for HF in the first/second claim position in a 1:1:2 ratio for systolic HF (I50.2), diastolic HF (I50.3), and other HF (I50.X). The primary gold standards included recorded HF diagnosis by a treating physician for HF hospitalization, ejection fraction (EF)≤50 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and EF>50 for HFpEF. If the quantitative EF was not present, then qualitative descriptions of EF were used for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction/HFpEF gold standards. Multiple secondary gold standards were also tested. Gold standard data were extracted from medical records using standardized forms and adjudicated by cardiology fellows/staff. We calculated positive predictive values with 95% CIs. RESULTS: The 200-chart validation sample included 50 systolic, 50 diastolic, 47 combined dysfunction, and 53 unspecified HF patients. The positive predictive values of acute HF hospitalization was 98% [95% CI, 95-100] for first-position ICD-10 HF diagnosis and 66% [95% CI, 58-74] for first/second-position diagnosis. Quantitative EF was available for ≥80% of patients with systolic, diastolic, or combined dysfunction ICD-10 codes. The positive predictive value of systolic HF codes was 90% [95% CI, 82-98] for EFs≤50% and 72% [95% CI, 60-85] for EFs≤40%. The positive predictive value was 92% [95% CI, 85-100] for HFpEF for EFs>50%. The ICD-10 codes for combined or unspecified HF poorly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-10 principal diagnosis identified acute HF hospitalization with a high positive predictive value. Systolic and diastolic ICD-10 diagnoses reliably identified heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF when EF 50% was used as the cutoff.

Long-term use of immunosuppressive medicines and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals take long-term immunosuppressive medications. We evaluated whether these individuals have worse outcomes when hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with non-immunosuppressed individuals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the largest longitudinal electronic health record repository of patients in hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the USA, between Jan 1, 2020, and June 11, 2021, within 42 health systems. We compared adults with immunosuppressive medications used before admission to adults without long-term immunosuppression. We considered immunosuppression overall, as well as by 15 classes of medication and three broad indications for immunosuppressive medicines. We used Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation, with the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate HRs for in-hospital death. Models were adjusted using doubly robust propensity score methodology. FINDINGS: Among 231 830 potentially eligible adults in the N3C repository who were admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during the study period, 222 575 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 59 years [SD 19]; 111 269 [50%] male). The most common comorbidities were diabetes (23%), pulmonary disease (17%), and renal disease (13%). 16 494 (7%) patients had long-term immunosuppression with medications for diverse conditions, including rheumatological disease (33%), solid organ transplant (26%), or cancer (22%). In the propensity score matched cohort (including 12 841 immunosuppressed patients and 29 386 non-immunosuppressed patients), immunosuppression was associated with a reduced risk of invasive ventilation (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·83-0·96) and there was no overall association between long-term immunosuppression and the risk of in-hospital death. None of the 15 medication classes examined were associated with an increased risk of invasive mechanical ventilation. Although there was no statistically significant association between most drugs and in-hospital death, increases were found with rituximab for rheumatological disease (1·72, 1·10-2·69) and for cancer (2·57, 1·86-3·56). Results were generally consistent across subgroup analyses that considered race and ethnicity or sex, as well as across sensitivity analyses that varied exposure, covariate, and outcome definitions. INTERPRETATION: Among this cohort, with the exception of rituximab, there was no increased risk of mechanical ventilation or in-hospital death for the rheumatological, antineoplastic, or antimetabolite therapies examined. FUNDING: None.

Evaluation of athletes with complex congenital heart disease.

As a result of improvements in congenital heart surgery, there are more adults alive today with congenital heart disease (CHD) than children. Individuals with cardiac birth defects may be able to participate in physical activities but require proper cardiovascular evaluation. The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology released guidelines in 2015 for athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. The guidelines express that although restriction from competitive athletics may be indicated for some, the majority of individuals with CHD can and should engage in some form of physical activity. This case study demonstrates the importance of combining all aspects of history, physical examination, ECG, and imaging modalities to evaluate cardiac anatomy and function in young athletes with complex CHD.