Predicting severe outcomes in Covid-19 related illness using only patient demographics, comorbidities and symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Development of a risk-stratification model to predict severe Covid-19 related illness, using only presenting symptoms, comorbidities and demographic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a case-control study with cases being those with severe disease, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, death or discharge to hospice, and controls being those with non-severe disease. Predictor variables included patient demographics, symptoms and past medical history. Participants were 556 patients with laboratory confirmed Covid-19 and were included consecutively after presenting to the emergency department at a tertiary care center from March 1, 2020 to April 21, 2020 RESULTS: Most common symptoms included cough (82%), dyspnea (75%), and fever/chills (77%), with 96% reporting at least one of these. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.06), dyspnea (OR, 2.56; 95% CI: 1.51-4.33), male sex (OR, 1.70; 95% CI: 1.10-2.64), immunocompromised status (OR, 2.22; 95% CI: 1.17-4.16) and CKD (OR, 1.76; 95% CI: 1.01-3.06) were significant predictors of severe Covid-19 infection. Hyperlipidemia was found to be negatively associated with severe disease (OR, 0.54; 95% CI: 0.33-0.90). A predictive equation based on these variables demonstrated fair ability to discriminate severe vs non-severe outcomes using only this historical information (AUC: 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Severe Covid-19 illness can be predicted using data that could be obtained from a remote screening. With validation, this model could possibly be used for remote triage to prioritize evaluation based on susceptibility to severe disease while avoiding unnecessary waiting room exposure.

Validation of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for depression in the general adult population. Although screening questionnaires for depression and anxiety exist in primary care settings, electronic health tools such as computerized adaptive tests based on item response theory can advance screening practices. This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH) for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) and assessing MDD and anxiety severity among adult primary care patients. METHODS: We approached 402 English-speaking adults for participation from a primary care clinic, of whom 271 adults (71% female, 65% black) participated. Participants completed modules from the CAT-MH (Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD, CAT-Depression Inventory, CAT-Anxiety Inventory); brief paper questionnaires (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2], Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale [GAD-7]); and a reference-standard interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Diagnoses. RESULTS: On the basis of the interview, 31 participants met criteria for MDD and 29 met criteria for GAD. The diagnostic accuracy of the Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD (area under curve [AUC] = 0.85) was similar to that of the PHQ-9 (AUC = 0.84) and higher than that of the PHQ-2 (AUC = 0.76) for MDD screening. Using the interview as the reference standard, the accuracy of the CAT-Anxiety Inventory (AUC = 0.93) was similar to that of the GAD-7 (AUC = 0.97) for assessing anxiety severity. The patient-preferred screening method was assessment via tablet/computer with audio. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized adaptive testing could be a valid and efficient patient-centered screening strategy for depression and anxiety screening in primary care settings.

Inflammation and the Central Nervous System in Inflammatory Rheumatic Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review how peripheral inflammation in rheumatic disease influences the central nervous system. We consider recent studies of rheumatic disease that employ functional and structural neuroimaging in the context of inflammation, as well as recent studies considering how immunosuppressive therapy is associated with changes in brain function and structure. RECENT FINDINGS: The most compelling evidence thus far comes from studies of rheumatoid arthritis and indicates that higher levels of inflammation are associated with changes in cognitive, affective, and pain-processing brain regions, some of which may be rectified by anti-inflammatory treatment. Comorbid symptoms such as widespread pain and fatigue may also be associated with these changes. Inflammation may be associated with compensatory activation of brain regions to offset structural changes. This emerging line of evidence suggests that communication between the brain and immune system are an important and underappreciated aspect of inflammatory rheumatic disease.

Survival in Frontotemporal Dementia Phenotypes: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survival in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is not well understood. We conducted a mixed effects meta-analysis of survival in FTD to examine phenotype differences and contributory factors. METHODS: The PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases were searched for studies describing survival or natural history of behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA), semantic dementia (SD), FTD with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (FTD-ALS), progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal degeneration. There were no language restrictions. RESULTS: We included 27 studies (2,462 subjects). Aggregate mean and median survival were derived for each phenotype and, for comparison, Alzheimer's disease (AD) (using data from the selected studies). Survival was shortest in FTD-ALS (2.5 years). Mean survival was longest in bvFTD and PNFA (8 years) and median survival in SD (12 years). AD was comparable in survival to all except FTD-ALS. Age and sex did not affect survival; the education effect was equivocal. Heterogeneity in FTD survival was largely, but not wholly, explained by phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Survival differs for FTD phenotypes but, except for FTD-ALS, compares well to AD survival. Elucidating the potential causes of within-phenotype heterogeneity in survival (such as complicating features and comorbidities) may open up opportunities for tailored interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The economic impact of both continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been evaluated separately. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding CSII to existing CGM users has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of CSII versus continuing multiple daily injections (MDI) in adults with T1D already using CGM. METHODS: In the second phase of the DIAMOND trial, 75 adults using CGM were randomized to either CGM+CSII or CGM+MDI (control) and surveyed at baseline and 28 weeks. We performed within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) via a modified Sheffield T1D model. RESULTS: Within the trial, the CGM+CSII group had a significant reduction in quality of life from baseline (-0.02 ± 0.05 difference in difference [DiD]) compared with controls. Total per-person 28-week costs were $8,272 (CGM+CSII) versus $5,623 (CGM+MDI); the difference in costs was primarily attributable to pump use ($2,644). Pump users reduced insulin intake (-12.8 units DiD) but increased the use of daily number of test strips (+1.2 DiD). Pump users also increased time with glucose in range of 70 to 180 mg/dL but had a higher HbA1c (+0.13 DiD) and more nonsevere hypoglycemic events. In the lifetime CEA, CGM+CSII would increase total costs by $112,045 DiD, decrease QALYs by 0.71, and decrease life expectancy by 0.48 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this single trial, initiating an insulin pump in adults with T1D already using CGM was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life. Additional evidence regarding the clinical effects of adopting combinations of new technologies from trials and real-world populations is needed to confirm these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the societal cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA1c ≥7.5% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or control. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. Within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. A modified Sheffield T1D policy model was used to simulate T1D complications. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Within the 6-month trial, the CGM group had similar QALYs to the control group (0.462 ± 0.05 vs. 0.455 ± 0.06 years, P = 0.61). The total 6-month costs were $11,032 (CGM) vs. $7,236 (control). The CGM group experienced reductions in HbA1c (0.60 ± 0.74% difference in difference [DiD]), P < 0.01), the daily rate of nonsevere hypoglycemia events (0.07 DiD, P = 0.013), and daily test strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 DiD, P = 0.04) compared with the control group. In the lifetime analysis, CGM was projected to reduce the risk of T1D complications and increase QALYs by 0.54. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $98,108 per QALY for the overall population. By extending sensor use from 7 to 10 days in a real-world scenario, the ICER was reduced to $33,459 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.