IL-6 inhibition with clazakizumab in patients receiving maintenance dialysis: a randomized phase 2b trial.

Inflammation mediated by interleukin-6 (IL-6) is strongly associated with cardiovascular risk. Here we evaluated clazakizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-6 ligand, in a phase 2b dose-finding study. Adults with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes receiving maintenance dialysis with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥ 2 mg l-1 at baseline were randomized to receive clazakizumab (2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg, n = 32 per dose group) or placebo (n = 31) every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in hs-CRP to week 12, expressed as the geometric mean ratio. Clazakizumab treatment signficantly reduced serum hs-CRP concentrations at week 12 by 86%, 90% and 92% relative to placebo in patients randomized to 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg clazakizumab, respectively (all P < 0.0001), meeting the primary outcome. With regard to secondary endpoints, clazakizumab treatment reduced serum fibrinogen, amyloid A, secretory phospholipase A2, and lipoprotein(a) concentrations, as well as increased mean serum albumin concentrations at 12 weeks, relative to placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved hs-CRP < 2.0 mg l-1 was 79%, 82% and 79% in the 2.5 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg clazakizumab groups, respectively, compared with 0% of placebo-treated patients. With regard to safety, no cases of sustained grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia or neutropenia were observed. Serious infections were seen with similar frequency in the placebo, clazakizumab 2.5 mg and clazakizumab 5 mg groups, but were numerically more frequent in the clazakizumab 10 mg group. The results of this trial indicate that in patients receiving maintenance dialysis, clazakizumab reduced inflammatory biomarkers associated with cardiovascular events. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05485961 .

Relationship between on-demand telehealth visits and emergency department and hospital surge during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: The relationship between COVID-19-related telehealth calls could be used to predict emergency department visits and hospital surges 3 days later potentially facilitating staffing adjustments in advance of patient arrivals. The purpose of this research was to study the temporal association between frequencies of on demand telehealth calls and emergency department surges during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods: This cohort study examined patients who self-initiated synchronous audio-video on-demand telehealth calls between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2022, and compared these to emergency department arrivals. The exposure in question was a synchronous audio-video on-demand telehealth visit. Our main outcome measured was frequency of emergency department visits. After autocorrelation, a multivariate linear regression model was utilized to determine temporal relationships between the two variables. Results: This cohort study examined 42,429 synchronous audio-video on-demand telehealth calls, of which 43.6% were COVID-19 related, and 540,686 emergency department visits, of which 3.9% were diagnosed with COVID-19. COVID-19-related telehealth calls 3 days prior were predictive of emergency department encounters (r 2 = 0.85, p < 0.001). Emergency department encounters were strongly correlated with hospital admissions (r 2 = 0.71, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that telehealth calls related to COVID-19 were an accurate predictor of emergency department encounters 3 days later, and emergency department encounters are highly correlated with hospital admissions. Limitations include that we only assessed a single health system in the region covered by the telemedicine healthcare professionals. We did not examine direct links between these two encounter types nor severity of illness at the patient level. Understanding that telehealth calls related to COVID-19 are highly predictive of emergency department encounters within 3 days may provide a brief but important window to upstaff hospitals at the beginning of future COVID-19 surges.

"Once I take that one bite": the consideration of harm reduction as a strategy to support dietary change for patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established guidelines to treat diabetes, many people with diabetes struggle to manage their disease. For many, this struggle is related to challenges achieving nutrition-related lifestyle changes. We examined how people with diabetes describe barriers to maintaining a healthy diet and considered the benefits of using a harm reduction approach to assist patients to achieve nutrition-related goals. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of 89 interviews conducted with adults who had type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Interviews were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Themes regarding food or diet were initially captured in a "food" node. Data in the food node were then sub-coded for this analysis, again using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants frequently used addiction language to talk about their relationship with food, at times referring to themselves as "an addict" and describing food as "their drug." Participants perceived their unhealthy food choices either as a sign of weakness or as "cheating." They also identified food's ability to comfort them and an unwillingness to change as particular challenges to sustaining a healthier diet. CONCLUSION: Participants often described their relationship with food through an addiction lens. A harm reduction approach has been associated with positive outcomes among those with substance abuse disorder. Patient-centered communication incorporating the harm reduction model may improve the patient-clinician relationship and thus improve patient outcomes and quality-of-life while reducing health-related stigma in diabetes care. Future work should explore the effectiveness of this approach in patients with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 02/06/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 08/06/2016. Data collection began on 29/04/2016.

Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Frequency of Acute Symptoms: Analysis of a Multi-institutional Prospective Cohort Study-December 20, 2020-June 20, 2022.

Background: While prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms. Results: We enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28). Conclusions: Participants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste. Trial registration: NCT04610515.

Patient-Important Needs and Goals Related to Nutrition Interventions during Cancer Treatment.

Patients with cancer often experience nutrition-related challenges for which they are subsequently connected with nutritional support. Yet to date there are no validated tools to assess whether nutrition interventions sufficiently address patients' needs. A vital step toward developing a tool is to identify primary patient-important goals related to receiving nutrition support during cancer care. To that end, we interviewed patients and clinicians to identify nutrition-related needs and goals of patients undergoing cancer treatment. We interviewed 31 patients undergoing cancer treatment and 17 clinicians at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a conventional qualitative content analysis approach. Patients and clinicians both identified weight maintenance, improved food satisfaction and intake, and improved quality of life metrics - such as reduced emotional and financial stress - as top nutrition-related goals. Participants also highlighted the importance of patients receiving food they like and having control over what they eat when designing optimal nutrition interventions. These findings will be used in future work to create a patient-centered assessment tool designed to capture a range of patient goals related to nutrition interventions.

White Paper: Best Practices in the Communication and Management of Actionable Incidental Findings in Emergency Department Imaging.

PURPOSE: Actionable incidental findings (AIFs) are common in radiologic imaging. Imaging is commonly performed in emergency department (ED) visits, and AIFs are frequently encountered, but the ED presents unique challenges for communication and follow-up of these findings. The authors formed a multidisciplinary panel to seek consensus regarding best practices in the reporting, communication, and follow-up of AIFs on ED imaging tests. METHODS: A 15-member panel was formed, nominated by the ACR and American College of Emergency Physicians, to represent radiologists, emergency physicians, patients, and those involved in health care systems and quality. A modified Delphi process was used to identify areas of best practice and seek consensus. The panel identified four areas: (1) report elements and structure, (2) communication of findings with patients, (3) communication of findings with clinicians, and (4) follow-up and tracking systems. A survey was constructed to seek consensus and was anonymously administered in two rounds, with a priori agreement requiring at least 80% consensus. Discussion occurred after the first round, with readministration of questions where consensus was not initially achieved. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the four areas identified. There was particularly strong consensus that AIFs represent a system-level issue, with need for approaches that do not depend on individual clinicians or patients to ensure communication and completion of recommended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary collaboration represents consensus results on best practices regarding the reporting and communication of AIFs in the ED setting.

Interprofessional Intervention to Reduce Emergency Department Visits in Black Individuals with Diabetes.

Black individuals with diabetes have high rates of emergency department (ED) use. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of Diabetes Interprofessional Team to Enhance Adherence to Medical Care (DM I-TEAM) versus Usual Medical Care (UMC) to reduce number of return ED visits/hospitalizations over 12 months in 200 Black individuals with diabetes after an ED visit. DM I-TEAM consisted of community health worker-delivered diabetes education and behavior activation, telehealth visits with a diabetes nurse educator and primary care physicians, and clinical pharmacist recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Secondary outcomes included glycemic control, PIMs use, diabetes self-management, diabetes self-efficacy, depression, and medical trust. Participants had a mean age of 64.9 years and 73.0% were women. The 2 treatment groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Sixty-eight (69.4%) DM I-TEAM participants and 69 (67.6%) UMC participants had at least 1 incident ED visit/hospitalization over 12 months. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for DM I-TEAM versus UMC was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.79-1.56; P = 0.54). DM I-TEAM participants attained significantly better diabetes self-management, diabetes self-efficacy, and institutional trust than UMC participants. There were no treatment group differences in hemoglobin A1c level nor PIMs use. Among Black individuals with diabetes, a novel culturally relevant intervention was no better than usual care at preventing return ED visits/hospitalizations over 1 year. Before reasonable clinical interventions such as DM I-TEAM can be effective, reducing system-level barriers to health, building community health care capacity, and designing interventions that better align with the everyday realities of patients' lives are necessary. clinicaltrials.gov NCT03393338.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

Urgent and non-emergent telehealth care for seniors: Findings from a multi-site impact study.

INTRODUCTION: The global pandemic has raised awareness of the need for alternative ways to deliver care, notably telehealth. Prior to this study, research has been mixed on its effectiveness and impact on downstream utilization, especially for seniors. Our multi-institution study of more than 300,000 telehealth visits for seniors evaluates the clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization for urgent and non-emergent symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from November 2015 to March 2019, leveraging different models of telehealth from three health systems, comparing them to in-person visits for urgent and non-emergent needs of seniors based on International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition diagnoses. The study population was adults aged 60 years or older who had access to telehealth and were affiliated with and resided in the geographic region of the healthcare organization providing telehealth. The primary outcomes of interest were visit resolution and episodes of care for those that required follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 313,516 telehealth visits were analysed across three healthcare organizations. Telehealth encounters were successful in resolving urgent and non-emergent needs in 84.0-86.7% of cases. When visits required follow-up, over 95% were resolved in less than three visits for both telehealth and in-person cohorts. DISCUSSION: While in-person visits have traditionally been the gold standard, our results suggest that when deployed within the confines of a patient's existing primary care and health system provider, telehealth can be an effective alternative to in-person care for urgent and non-emergent needs of seniors without increasing downstream utilization.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging Platforms in Emergency Departments on Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Large segments of the US population's primary health care access occurs in emergency departments (EDs). These groups have disproportionately high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccine uptake. Objective: To determine whether provision of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs increases COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 7 hospital EDs in 4 US cities from December 6, 2021, to July 28, 2022. Noncritically ill adult patients who had not previously received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled. Interventions: A 3-pronged COVID-19 vaccine messaging platform (an English- or Spanish-language 4-minute video; a 1-page informational flyer; and a brief, scripted message from an ED physician or nurse) was delivered during patient waiting times. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were (1) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, assessed by survey responses in the ED, and (2) receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days, ascertained by ED confirmation of vaccination, electronic health record review, and telephone follow-up. Results: Of the 496 participants enrolled (221 during intervention weeks and 275 during control weeks), the median (IQR) age was 39 (30-54) years, 205 (41.3%) were female, 193 (38.9%) were African American, 97 (19.6%) were Latinx, and 218 (44.0%) lacked primary care physicians. More intervention group participants, compared with control participants, stated that they would accept the vaccine in the ED (57 [25.8%] vs 33 [12.0%]; adjusted difference, 11.9 [95% CI, 4.5-19.3] percentage points; number needed to treat [NNT], 8 [95% CI, 5-22]). More intervention group participants than control participants received a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of their ED visit (44 [20.0%] vs 24 [8.7%]; adjusted difference, 7.9 [95% CI, 1.7-14.1] percentage points; NNT, 13 [95% CI, 7-60]). The intervention group had greater outcome effect sizes than the control group in participants who lacked a primary care physician (acceptance, 38 of 101 [37.6%] vs 16 of 117 [13.7%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 31 of 101 [30.7%] vs 11 of 117 [9.4%] [P for interaction = .006]), as well as in Latinx persons (acceptance, 23 of 52 [44.2%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 22 of 52 [42.3%] vs 4 of 48 [8.3%] [P for interaction < .001]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cluster randomized clinical trial showed that with low NNT, implementation of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs leads to greater vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Broad implementation in EDs could lead to greater COVID-19 vaccine delivery to underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in EDs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05142332.

A Prioritized Patient-Centered Research Agenda to Reduce Disparities in Telehealth Uptake: Results from a National Consensus Conference.

Introduction: We hosted a national consensus conference with a diverse group of stakeholders to develop a patient-centered research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth use. Methods: Attendees were purposively invited to participate in a 2-day virtual conference. The group developed a prioritized research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth uptake, with discussion informed by findings from a scoping review. All work was conducted in partnership with a Steering Committee of national experts in telehealth and patient-centered care (n = 5) and a community-based Telehealth Advisory Board with experience with telehealth use and barriers (n = 8). Results: Sixty individuals participated in the conference and discussion resulted in a final list of 20 questions. Fifty-two attendees voted on the final prioritization of these questions. Results were aggregated for all voters (n = 52) and patient-only voters (n = 8). The top question identified by both groups focused on patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth use. The entire group voting identified telehealth's impact on patient outcomes as the next most important questions, while the patient-only group identified trust-related considerations and cultural factors impacting telehealth use as next priorities. Conclusions: This project involved extensive patient and stakeholder engagement. While voting varied between patients only and the entire group of conference attendees, top identified priorities included patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth, trust and cultural barriers and facilitators to telehealth, and assessment of telehealth's impact on patient outcomes. This research agenda can inform design of future research focused on addressing disparities in telehealth use.

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.

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department-PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. METHODS: This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients. DISCUSSION: Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. TRIAL STATUS: We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05142332 . Registered 02 December 2021.

Troponin is unrelated to outcomes in heart failure patients discharged from the emergency department.

Background: Prior data has demonstrated increased mortality in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and troponin elevation. No data has specifically examined the prognostic significance of troponin elevation in patients with AHF discharged after emergency department (ED) management. Objective: Evaluate the relationship between troponin elevation and outcomes in patients with AHF who are treated and released from the ED. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the Get with the Guidelines to Reduce Disparities in AHF Patients Discharged from the ED (GUIDED-HF) trial, a randomized, controlled trial of ED patients with AHF who were discharged. Patients with elevated conventional troponin not due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint: time to 30-day cardiovascular death and/or heart failure-related events. Results: Of the 491 subjects included in the GUIDED-HF trial, 418 had troponin measured during the ED evaluation and 66 (16%) had troponin values above the 99th percentile. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 54-70), 62% (n = 261) were male, 63% (n = 265) were Black, and 16% (n = 67) experienced our primary outcome. There were no differences in our primary outcome between those with and without troponin elevation (12/66, 18.1% vs 55/352, 15.6%; P = 0.60). This effect was maintained regardless of assignment to usual care or the intervention arm. In multivariable regression analysis, there was no association between our primary outcome and elevated troponin (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval,  0.49-2.01, P = 0.994). Conclusion: If confirmed in a larger cohort, these findings may facilitate safe ED discharge for a group of patients with AHF without ACS when an elevated troponin is the primary reason for admission.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Study protocol for the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-COV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE): A longitudinal study of the medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Reports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: INSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses. RESULTS: Participating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department - PROCOVAXED: Study Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Methods This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 one-week periods to the intervention and 30 one-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: 1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; 2) incarceration; 3) psychiatric chief complaint; and 4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-minute video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by ED physicians and nurses); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients. Discussion Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs. Trial Status: We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022. Conclusions Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.