Racial Disparities in ICU Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Racial disparities in the United States healthcare system are well described across a variety of clinical settings. The ICU is a clinical environment with a higher acuity and mortality rate, potentially compounding the impact of disparities on patients. We sought to systematically analyze the literature to assess the prevalence of racial disparities in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: We identified articles that evaluated racial differences on outcomes among ICU patients in the United States. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: We dual-extracted study characteristics and outcomes that assessed for disparities in care (e.g., in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay). Studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,325 articles screened, 25 articles were included (n = 751,796 patients). Studies demonstrated race-based differences in outcomes, including higher mortality rates for Black patients when compared with White patients. However, when controlling for confounding variables, such as severity of illness and hospital type, mortality differences based on race were no longer observed. Additionally, results revealed that Black patients experienced greater financial impacts during an ICU admission, were less likely to receive early tracheostomy, and were less likely to receive timely antibiotics than White patients. Many studies also observed differences in patients' end-of-life care, including lower rates on the quality of dying, less advanced care planning, and higher intensity of interventions at the end of life for Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found significant differences in the care and outcomes among ICU patients of different races. Mortality differences were largely explained by accompanying demographic and patient factors, highlighting the effect of structural inequalities on racial differences in mortality in the ICU. This systematic review provides evidence that structural inequalities in care persist in the ICU, which contribute to racial disparities in care. Future research should evaluate interventions to address inequality in the ICU.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome After SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Chronic symptoms reported following an infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as cognitive problems, overlap with symptoms included in the definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness subsequent to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, changes in ME/CFS symptoms through 12 months of follow-up, and the association of ME/CFS symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test results at the acute infection-like index illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, longitudinal cohort study (Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]) enrolled participants from December 11, 2020, to August 29, 2022. Participants were adults aged 18 to 64 years with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received a US Food and Drug Administration-approved SARS-CoV-2 test at the time of illness and did not die or withdraw from the study by 3 months. Follow-up surveys were collected through February 28, 2023. Exposure: COVID-19 status (positive vs negative) at enrollment. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was the weighted proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness based on the 2015 Institute of Medicine clinical case definition using self-reported symptoms. Results: A total of 4378 participants were included in the study. Most were female (3226 [68.1%]). Mean (SD) age was 37.8 (11.8) years. The survey completion rates ranged from 38.7% (3613 of 4738 participants) to 76.3% (1835 of 4738) and decreased over time. The weighted proportion of participants identified with ME/CFS-like illness did not change significantly at 3 through 12 months of follow-up and was similar in the COVID-19-positive (range, 2.8%-3.7%) and COVID-19-negative (range, 3.1%-4.5%) groups. Adjusted analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of ME/CFS-like illness at any time point between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative individuals (marginal odds ratio range, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.42-1.67] to 1.18 [95% CI, 0.55-2.51]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, there was no evidence that the proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness differed between those infected with SARS-CoV-2 vs those without SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 12 months after infection. A 3% to 4% prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness after an acute infection-like index illness would impose a high societal burden given the millions of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness.

Importance: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (ß = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: ß = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: ß = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.