RESUMO
Identifying patients at risk for readmission after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection could facilitate care planning and prevention. This retrospective cohort study of 60-day readmission included 105 543 COVID-19 patients at 21 US healthcare systems who were discharged alive between February 2020 and November 2021. Generalized linear mixed regression analyses tested predictors of 60-day readmission and severity. The all-cause readmission rate was 15% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10%-21%), with 22% (95% CI = 18%-26%) of readmitted patients needing intensive care, and 6% (95% CI = 05%-07%) dying. Factors associated with readmission included male sex, government insurance, positive smoking history, co-morbidity burden, longer index admissions, and diagnoses at index admission (e.g., cancer, chronic kidney disease, and liver disease). Death and intensive care rates at readmission declined postvaccine availability. Receiving at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses, which were more common among older patients and those with comorbid conditions, was not independently associated with readmission but predicted a reduced risk of death at readmission. This retrospective cohort study identified factors associated with all-cause readmission for patients re-admitted to the same health system after hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who are male, who smoke, who have a higher comorbidity burden, and have government insurance may benefit from additional postacute care planning.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Feminino , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Readmissão do Paciente , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos Retrospectivos , Pacientes Internados , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Fatores de Risco , HospitalizaçãoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional analysis examined self-reported economic hardships of the 2008 Great Recession, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and psychological well-being (PWB) as predictors of systemic inflammatory physiology at midlife. We also tested for differential vulnerability in the relationship between recession hardship and inflammatory physiology by race/ethnicity, education, and PWB. METHODS: Adults from the Midlife in the United States Refresher sample completed a survey and biomedical assessments after the recession ( n = 592 non-Hispanic White respondents, n = 158 Black/African American respondents, n = 108 respondents with other race/ethnicity). Cumulative recession hardship was the sum of financial, housing, and employment-related events. Outcomes included circulating levels of interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein. General linear regression models tested main effects interactions between primary predictor variables. RESULTS: Educational attainment was inversely associated with recession hardships ( b = -0.18, 95% confidence interval = -0.26 to -0.11, p < .001). Black/African American respondents reported more recession hardships than White respondents ( b = 1.17, 95% confidence interval = 0.67 to 1.68, p < .001). More recession hardships predicted higher levels of interleukin 6 ( b = 0.06, p < .001) and C-reactive protein ( b = 0.04, p = .004). Analyses did not support race/ethnicity, education, and PWB as moderators of the association between recession hardship and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: Race/ethnicity and education independently predicted disparities in cumulative recession hardship exposure. Recession hardship predicted higher blood levels of inflammatory proteins associated with long-term health. The lack of findings for differential vulnerability in the relationship between recession hardship and inflammatory markers by race/ethnicity, education, or PWB was possibly due to the limited sample size.
Assuntos
Recessão Econômica , Escolaridade , Estresse Financeiro , Inflamação , Adulto , Humanos , Proteína C-Reativa , Estudos Transversais , Interleucina-6 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Brancos , Negro ou Afro-AmericanoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Humanos , Nicotina/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Vacinas contra COVID-19/uso terapêutico , Universidades , Wisconsin , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco , Fumar/epidemiologia , HospitaisRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Adulto , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Pandemias , Universidades , Wisconsin , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/terapia , HospitalizaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Health system change can increase the reach of evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. Proactive electronic health record (EHR)-enabled, closed-loop referral ("eReferral") to state tobacco quitlines increases the rates at which patients who smoke accept cessation treatment. Implementing such system change poses many challenges, however, and adaptations to system contexts are often required, but are understudied. This retrospective case study identified adaptations to eReferral EHR tools and implementation strategies in two healthcare systems. METHODS: In a large clustered randomized controlled trial (C-RCT; NCT02735382) conducted in 2016-2017, 11 primary care clinics in two healthcare systems implemented quitline eReferral, starting with 1 pilot clinic per system followed by 2 phases of implementation (an experimental phase in 5-6 test clinics per system and then a system-wide dissemination phase in both systems). Adaptations were informed by stakeholder input from live trainings, follow-up calls and meetings in the first month after eReferral launch, emails, direct observation by researchers, and clinic staff survey responses. Retrospective, descriptive analysis characterized implementation strategy modifications and adaptations using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). A pre- and post-implementation survey assessed staff ratings of eReferral acceptability and implementation barriers and facilitators. FINDINGS: Major modifications to closed-loop eReferral implementation strategies included aligning the eReferral initiative with other high-priority health system objectives, modifying eReferral user interfaces and training in their use, modifying eReferral workflows and associated training, and maintaining and enhancing interoperability and clinician feedback functions. The two health systems both used Epic EHRs but used different approaches to interfacing with the quitline vendor and integrating eReferral into clinician workflows. Both health systems engaged in iterative refinement of the EHR alert prompting eReferral, the eReferral order, trainings, and workflows. Staff survey comments suggested moderate acceptability of eReferral processes and identified possible targets for future modifications in eReferral, including reducing clinician burden related to EHR documentation and addressing clinicians' negative beliefs about patient receptivity to cessation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: System-wide implementation of tobacco quitline eReferral in primary care outpatient clinics is feasible but requires extensive coordination across stakeholders, tailoring to local health system EHR configurations, and sensitivity to system- and clinic-specific workflows. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT02735382 . Registered on 12 August 2016.