Risk Stratification Model for Severe COVID-19 Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification models have been developed to identify patients that are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and severe illness. Objectives To develop and implement a scoring tool to identify COVID-19 patients that are at risk for severe illness during the Omicron wave. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that was conducted in Israel's second-largest healthcare maintenance organization. All patients with a new episode of COVID-19 between 26 November 2021 and 18 January 2022 were included. A model was developed to predict severe illness (COVID-19-related hospitalization or death) based on one-third of the study population (the train group). The model was then applied to the remaining two-thirds of the study population (the test group). Risk score sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value rates, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were calculated to describe the performance of the model. RESULTS: A total of 409,693 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 over the two-month study period, of which 0.4% had severe illness. Factors that were associated with severe disease were age (age > 75, OR-70.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.8-115.9), immunosuppression (OR-4.8, 95% CI 3.4-6.7), and pregnancy (5 months or more, OR-82.9, 95% CI 53-129.6). Factors that were associated with a reduced risk for severe disease were vaccination status (patients vaccinated in the previous six months OR-0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and a prior episode of COVID-19 (OR-0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5). According to the model, patients who were in the 10th percentile of the risk severity score were considered at an increased risk for severe disease. The model accuracy was 88.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This model has allowed us to prioritize patients requiring closer follow-up by their physicians and outreach services, as well as identify those that are most likely to benefit from anti-viral treatment during the fifth wave of infection in Israel, dominated by the Omicron variant.

Association Between AZD7442 (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab) Administration and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection, Hospitalization, and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Intramuscular AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab [Evusheld; AstraZeneca]) has been found effective among immunocompromised individuals (ICIs) in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease in ICIs. We evaluated the association between AZD7442 administration and SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease (COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality) among selected ICIs, during a fifth Omicron-dominated wave of COVID-19 (December 2021-April 2022) in Israel. METHODS: ICIs aged ≥12 years identified in the Maccabi HealthCare Services database were invited by SMS/e-mail to receive AZD7442. Demographic information, comorbidities, coronavirus vaccination, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcome data (infection, severe disease) were extracted from the database. Rates of infection and severe disease were compared between those administered AZD7442 and those who did not respond to the invitation over a 3-month period. RESULTS: Of all 825 ICIs administered AZD7442, 29 (3.5%) became infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with 308 (7.2%) of 4299 ICIs not administered AZD7442 (P < .001). After adjustment, the AZD7442 group was half as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the nonadministered group (OR: .51; 95% CI: .30-.84). One person in the AZD7442 group (0.1%) was hospitalized for COVID-19 compared with 27 (0.6%) in the nonadministered group (P = .07). No mortality was recorded among the AZD7442 group compared with 40 deaths (0.9%) in the nonadministered group (P = .005). After adjustment, ICIs administered AZD7442 were 92% less likely to be hospitalized/die than those not administered AZD7442 (OR: .08; 95% CI: .01-.54). CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 among ICIs may protect against Omicron variant infection and severe disease and should be considered for pre-exposure prophylactic AZD7442.

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Patients with Physical Disability.

Background: Pap smear has a central role in cervical cancer screening. Previous studies have found that female patients with disabilities are less likely to receive a Pap smear as recommended by guidelines. The aim of our study was to examine the association between physical disability and Pap smear receipt in Israel. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the electronic medical records of the second largest health care maintenance organization in Israel. All female patients during 2012-2017 aged 25-65 were identified. The exposure variable was physical disability, and the outcome variable was Pap smear receipt. We used logistic regression to control for covariates. Results: A total of 391,259 patients were eligible for this study, 6,720 (1.7%) with physical disability. 56.7% of patients with disabilities had received Pap smear compared to 63.3% of patients without disabilities, odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.80. When adjusting to sociodemographic and clinical covariates, patients with disabilities were less likely to receive Pap smear, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88. For all patients, older age, lower socioeconomic status, religious minorities, cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, and obesity were associated with lower odds of receipt of Pap smear. A history of nongynecologic oncologic disease was associated with increased odds of Pap smear receipt. Conclusion: Our study highlights the disparities between patients with and without physical disability with regard to screening for cervical cancer by receipt of Pap smear. Creating an appropriate practice with adequate access to patients with disability should be a focus for health care providers and policy makers.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: Risk factors and management.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may cause chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Current knowledge regarding prevalence and risk factors for CTEPH among APS patients is limited. We sought to determine clinical features and biomarkers that could identify APS subjects suffering from CTEPH, and describe the prevalence, course and treatment outcomes of patients with APS-CTEPH. METHODS: 504 APS patients were treated in our center during 2008 to 2019. We studied clinical and laboratory features of 69 APS patients, comparing 19 patients diagnosed with CTEPH (APS-CTEPH) and treated accordingly, with 50 consecutive age and gender matched patients with no evidence of pulmonary hypertension (APS-No-CTEPH). RESULTS: CTEPH prevalence was 3.8% in our APS cohort and was linked with the following parameters: primary APS (p < 0.05); prior pulmonary embolism (p < 0.001); recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) (p < 0.001); lower platelet counts (p < 0.001); triple anti-phospholipid antibodies positivity (p < 0.001), higher titers of anti-cardiolipin IgG (p < 0.001), anti-B2GPI IgG (p < 0.001), and high Russell viper venom time ratio (RVVT-ratio) (p < 0.05). Additionally, history of catastrophic APS was more prevalent in APS-CTEPH vs APS-No-CTEPH (p < 0.05). Of APS-CTEPH patients, 15/19 underwent pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA): In 12/15 the procedure was elective and resulted in good perioperative and long-term outcomes, while only 1 of 3 patients that underwent urgent PEA survived. CONCLUSIONS: CTEPH is relatively common in APS. Primary APS, prior PE, recurrent VTE, thrombocytopenia and specific anti-phospholipid antibodies predict CTEPH in APS. Active assessment for CTEPH in APS patients should be considered, as PEA was found to be effective and relatively safe, especially if electively performed.