Racial Differences and In-Hospital Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data on how race affects the clinical presentation and short-term outcome among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥ 18 years, testing positive for COVID-19 from March 13, 2020 to May 13, 2020 in a United States (U.S.) integrated healthcare system with multiple facilities in two states were evaluated. We documented racial differences in clinical presentation, disposition, and in-hospital outcomes for hospitalized patients with COIVD-19. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to evaluate independent predictors of outcomes by race. RESULTS: During the study period, 3678 patients tested positive for COVID-19, among which 866 were hospitalized (55.4% self-identified as Caucasian, 29.5% as Black, 3.3% as Hispanics, and 4.7% as other racial groups). Hospitalization rates were highest for Black patients (36.6%), followed by other (28.3%), Caucasian patients (24.4%), then Hispanic patients (10.7%) (p < 0.001). Caucasian patients were older, and with more comorbidities. Absolute lymphocyte count was lowest among Caucasian patients. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to Caucasians, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.09; p = 0.08) or other races (adjusted OR 1.62; 95% CI 0.80-3.27; p = 0.18). Black and Hispanic patients were admitted less frequently to the intensive care unit (ICU), and Black patients were less likely to require pressor support or hemodialysis (HD) compared with Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis of a large integrated healthcare system early in the pandemic revealed that patients with COVID-19 did exhibit some racial variations in clinical presentation, laboratory data, and requirements for advanced monitoring and cardiopulmonary support, but these nuances did not dramatically alter in-hospital outcomes.

Assessment of Outcomes of Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis.

Importance: Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin regarding stroke prevention and bleeding rates, respectively, in elderly patients with AF with MCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness analysis included data from the population-based Medicare beneficiaries database, evaluating patients with new AF diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2013, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1 to 3, 4 to 5, and 6 or higher; HAS-BLED scores of 0 to 1, 2, and 3 or higher; and Gagne comorbidity scores of 0 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 or higher were categorized as having low, moderate, or high morbidity, respectively. Within morbidity categories, patients receiving dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity matching, and the relative hazards of stroke, major hemorrhage (MH), and death were evaluated. Data analysis included follow-up from the date of initial anticoagulant use through December 31, 2013. Exposures: Rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily), dabigatran (150 mg twice daily), or warfarin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic stroke, MH, and death. Results: The study cohort included 21 979 patients using dabigatran (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 51.1% female), 23 177 using rivaroxaban (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 49.9% female), and 101 715 using warfarin (mean [SD] age, 78.5 [7.2] years; 57.3% female). In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were no differences in stroke rates between the 3 oral anticoagulant groups. Dabigatran users had lower hazard of MH compared with warfarin users among patients with low MCC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83; P < .001; for MCC defined as low CHA2DS2-VASc score), and similar risk in patients with moderate to high MCC. While there was no difference in MH between rivaroxaban and warfarin users, rivaroxaban users had significantly higher MH risk compared with dabigatran users in the medium and high comorbidity groups (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48; P = .02 and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.56; P = .01, respectively). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban users had lower rates of death compared with warfarin users (HR ranged from 0.52-0.84), across comorbidity levels. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral anticoagulants are similarly effective in stroke prevention among patients with AF with MCC. However, dabigatran and rivaroxaban use may be associated with lower rates of mortality in patients with MCC.