Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3.

Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Experiences with Cyclical User-Centered Design for Patient and Clinician Facing Medication Reconciliation mHealth Applications.

Accurate medication lists are essential data required to make clinically informed decisions. Obtaining a comprehensive, up-to-date medication list is difficult for clinicians. Patients have limited input into reviewing and reconciling their own medication data. Ideally, a medication list would comprise a 360-degree view of all prescribed, dispensed, purchased medications and would seamlessly connect patients and providers to medication data from multiple sources. While an ideal medication list would capture every aspect of medication management, in reality a Best-Possible Medication History (BPMH) is a more achievable goal. In an effort to realize a BPMH and to facilitate the goals of the State of Connecticut's Office of Health Strategy's Medication Reconciliation and Polypharmacy Committee (MRPC), we engaged stakeholders (patients, clinicians, advocates) in focus-groups and interviews to solicit feedback on the user interface requirements for a BPMH. Feedback was obtained via facilitated discussions that occurred in-person, via virtual meetings, and through online surveys.

Analysis of medication therapy discontinuation orders in new electronic prescriptions and opportunities for implementing CancelRx.

Objective: To illustrate the need for wider implementation of the CancelRx message by quantifying and characterizing the inappropriate usage of new electronic prescription (NewRx) messages for communicating discontinuation instructions to pharmacies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis on a nationally representative random sample of 1 400 000 NewRx messages transmitted over 7 days to identify e-prescriptions containing medication discontinuation instructions in NewRx text fields. A vocabulary of search terms signifying cancellation instructions was formulated and then iteratively refined. True-positives were subsequently identified programmatically and through manual reviews. Two independent reviewers identified incidences in which these instructions were associated with high-alert or look-alike-sound-like (LASA) medications. Results: We identified 9735 (0.7% of the total) NewRx messages containing prescription cancellation instructions with 78.5% observed in the Notes field; 35.3% of identified NewRxs were associated with high-alert or LASA medications. The most prevalent cancellation instruction types were medication strength or dosage changes (39.3%) and alternative therapy replacement orders (39.0%). Discussion: While the incidence of prescribers using the NewRx to transmit cancellation instructions was low, their transmission in NewRx fields not intended to accommodate such information can produce significant potential patient safety concerns, such as duplicate or inaccurate therapies. These findings reveal the need for wider industry adoption of the CancelRx message by electronic health record (EHR) and pharmacy systems, along with clearer guidance and improved end-user training, particularly as states increasingly mandate electronic prescribing of controlled substances. Conclusion: Encouraging the use of CancelRx and reducing the misuse of NewRx fields would reduce workflow disruptions and unnecessary risks to patient safety.