Estimating Community Disruption from Nighttime Gunshots in 6 U.S. Cities, 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Gunshots affect those directly involved in an incident and those in the surrounding community. The community-level impact of nighttime gunshots, which may be particularly disruptive to the sleep of nearby community members, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to estimate the number of people potentially affected by nighttime gunshots and the relationship between nighttime gunshots and median household income in the USA. DESIGN: We collected publicly available data on the timing and location of gunshots in six U.S. cities (Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Washington, D.C.; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; and Portland, OR) from 2015 to 2021. We then analyzed the data by computing rate ratios (RRs) to compare the frequency of gunshots during nighttime hours (6:00 pm to 5:59 am) versus daytime hours (6:00 am to 5:59 pm). Additionally, we used geospatial mapping to create choropleth maps to visualize the variation in nighttime gunshot density across cities. We estimated, using city-wide population, person-nights potentially impacted by the sound of gunshots within areas of 0.2- (low) and 0.5-mile (high) radius. Finally, for five of six cities where data on median household income were available by census tract, we built nonlinear regression models to estimate the relationship between the number of nighttime gunshots and median household income. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 72,236 gunshots. Gunshots were more common during the nighttime than daytime (overall RR = 2.5). Analyses demonstrated that the low estimates for the mean annual number of person-nights impacted by nighttime gunshots were 0.4 million in Baltimore and Portland, 1.3 million in Philadelphia, 1.6 million in Boston, 2.9 million in New York City, and 5.9 million in Washington. The number of nighttime gunshots was inversely related to median household income. CONCLUSIONS: Nighttime gunshots are prevalent, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, and may have under-recognized effects on the surrounding community.

Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.

Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.

Where Are the Questions About Firearms?: An Analysis of US Federal Public Health Survey Data Infrastructure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing federal survey data infrastructure pertaining to firearms and firearm-related violence. BACKGROUND: Firearm-related violence results in >40,000 deaths in the United States each year. Limited federal investments over the past 25 years have restricted a systematic approach to federal data collection related to firearms. METHODS: We conducted a systematized review of the 22 continuously administered public health surveys in the US Federal Statistical System conducted between 1995 and 2020. Surveys were included if they addressed 1 of 4 areas of inquiry: (1) firearms; (2) exposure to or experience of firearm-related, intimate partner, or other interpersonal violence; (3) substance use and substance use disorder; (4) behavioral health. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency of relevant questions. RESULTS: Nine of 22 surveys were focused on one of these domains and included in this analysis, 7 focused on adults (total 128 survey administrations over the study period) and 2 on youth and adolescents (total 30 administrations). Among all adult surveys, questions related to firearm use were asked 20% of the time, firearm-related violence 4%, firearm ownership 23%; in youth surveys, firearm use was addressed 0 times, firearm-related violence 57%, and firearm ownership 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable national data are critical to understanding firearm-related violence as well as to developing, implementing, and evaluating public health measures to address it. Improving the consistency of questions pertaining to firearm access and experiences of violence in federal surveys offers an opportunity to improve national data infrastructure.

Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P = 0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P = 0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P = 0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937.).

Coding for Physical Restraint Status Among Hospitalized Patients: a 2019 National Inpatient Sample Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reduction of physical restraint utilization in the hospital setting is a key goal of high-quality care, but little is known about the rate of restraint use in general hospitals in the USA. OBJECTIVE: This study reports the rate of physical restraint coding among acute care hospital discharges in the USA and explores associated demographic and diagnostic factors. DESIGN: The National Inpatient Sample, a de-identified all-payors database of acute care hospital discharges in the USA, was queried for patients aged 18 and older with a diagnosis code for physical restraint status in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients aged 18 and older. MAIN MEASURES: Demographics, discharge diagnoses, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, total hospital charges. KEY RESULTS: In total, 220,470 (95% CI: 208,114 to 232,826) hospitalizations, or 0.7% of overall hospitalizations, included a discharge code for physical restraint status. There was a 700-fold difference in coding for restraint utilization based on diagnosis, with 7.4% of patients with encephalitis receiving restraint diagnosis codes compared to < 0.01% of patients with uncomplicated diabetes. In an adjusted model, male sex was associated with an odds ratio of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5) for restraint utilization coding, and Black race was associated with an odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.4) relative to white race. CONCLUSIONS: In the general hospital setting, there is variability in physical restraint coding by sex, race, and clinical diagnosis. More research is needed into the appropriate utilization of restraints in the hospital setting and possible inequities in restraint utilization.

Press Releases of Drug-Related Randomized Trial Results Prior to Publication in High-Impact Journals: an Observational Study.

IMPORTANCE: Results from high-profile randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely reported through press release months prior to peer-reviewed publication. There are potential benefits to press releases (e.g., knowledge dissemination, ensuring regulatory compliance), but also potential drawbacks (e.g., selective reporting, positive "spin"). OBJECTIVE: To characterize the practice of press release predating the publication of a drug-related RCT in a peer-reviewed journal ("preemptive press release"), including factors associated with this practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We systematically reviewed all RCTs of medications published between 2015 and 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Lancet. Press releases were identified using a systematic search of the grey literature (e.g., press release databases, study sponsor websites). An RCT was considered to have a preemptive press release if the press release was published at least three months (90 days) prior to the date of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of preemptive press release, defined as a press-release at least 90 days prior to the date of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. As secondary measures for dissemination, we also assessed citation count and Altmetric score. RESULTS: We identified 988 RCTs, of which 172 (17%) had a press release published at least 90 days before the date of peer-reviewed publication. Press releases were published a median of 246 days (interquartile range [IQR] 169-366 days) before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In the multivariable logistic regression model, the strongest predictor of having a preemptive press release was funding by a pharmaceutical company (odds ratio 13, 95% CI 7, 25). Approximately 85% of RCTs with preemptive press releases had a positive primary outcome and, concordantly, 81% of the corresponding press releases had a positive headline. Multivariable regression models identified studies with a preemptive press release had a similar Altmetric score (median - 15, 95% CI - 33, 12) and higher median citation count (median 22 [95% CI 10 to 33] compared to studies without a preemptive press release. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Preemptive press releases were common, most often issued for trials funded by a pharmaceutical company, and typically preceded publication in a peer-reviewed journal by approximately eight months.

Determining the Incidence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Among Early Recipients of COVID-19 Vaccines (DISCOVER-COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study of Healthcare Workers Before, During and After Vaccination.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination on viral characteristics of breakthrough infections is unknown. In this prospective cohort study, incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection decreased following vaccination. Although asymptomatic positive tests were observed following vaccination, the higher cycle thresholds, repeat negative tests, and inability to culture virus raise questions about their clinical significance.

The Landscape of COVID-19 Research in the United States: a Cross-sectional Study of Randomized Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov.

IMPORTANCE: SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.

A National Research Strategy to Reduce Firearm-Related Injury and Death: Recommendations from the Health Policy Research Subcommittee of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM).

Injury due to firearms is a serious health issue in the USA, leading to nearly 40,000 deaths annually and many more non-fatal injuries. Despite the significant impact on morbidity and mortality, relatively little research funding is dedicated to understanding the impact of firearm-related injury and to developing strategies to mitigate harm. In part, research has been stymied by decades-old language in federal legislation that was interpreted as prohibiting federal funding for firearm injury-related research. This paper, prepared by members of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), calls for support for research that seeks to understand the nature of firearm-related injury and resources to develop effective approaches to prevent it. We outline recommendations to develop evidence to inform policymakers and the medical and public health communities. These recommendations include (1) development of a shared national research agenda to address firearm-related injury and death; (2) allocation of federal funds specifically for research related to firearm injury; (3) support for the career development of researchers studying firearm-related injury; and (4) facilitating access to comprehensive data sources needed for developing evidence.

Medicare Spending on Brand-name Combination Medications vs Their Generic Constituents.

Importance: Brand-name combination drugs can be more expensive than the sum of their components, especially when the constituent products are available as generic medications. The potential savings that could be achieved using generic components is not known. Objective: To estimate the additional cost to Medicare of prescribing brand-name combination medications instead of generic constituents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis for 2011 through 2016 using the Medicare data set of Part D beneficiaries prescribed any of the 1500 medications that accounted for the highest total spending in 2015. Brand-name combination drugs that had identical or therapeutically equivalent generic constituents were included. Exposures: Brand-name, oral combination medications with constituents available either as generic drugs or therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The estimated difference between the amount spent by Medicare on brand-name combination drugs and the estimated amount that would have been spent on substitutable generic components. Results: Among the 1500 medications evaluated, 29 brand-name combination medications were separated into 3 mutually exclusive categories: constituents available as generic medications at identical doses (n = 20), generic constituents at different doses (n = 3), and therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes (n = 6). For the constituents available as generic medications at identical doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $303 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $68 million, which is an estimated difference of $235 million. For the generic constituents at different doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $232 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $13 million, which is an estimated difference of $219 million. For the therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $491 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $20 million, which is an estimated difference of $471 million. In 2016, the estimated spending for the generic constituents for these 29 drugs would have been $925 million less than the estimated spending for the brand-name combinations. For the 10 most costly combination products available during the entire study period, the listed Medicare spending could have been an estimated $2.7 billion lower between 2011 and 2016 if the generic constituents had been prescribed. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2016, the difference between the amount that the Medicare drug benefit program reported spending on brand-name combination medications and the estimated spending for generic constituents for the same number of doses was $925 million. Promoting generic substitution and therapeutic interchange through prescriber education and more rational substitution policies may offer important opportunities to achieve substantial savings in the Medicare drug benefit program.