Post-Acute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) After Infection During Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) after infection with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy and to characterize associated risk factors. METHODS: In a multicenter cohort study (NIH RECOVER [Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery]-Pregnancy Cohort), individuals who were pregnant during their first SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled across the United States from December 2021 to September 2023, either within 30 days of their infection or at differential time points thereafter. The primary outcome was PASC , defined as score of 12 or higher based on symptoms and severity as previously published by the NIH RECOVER-Adult Cohort, at the first study visit at least 6 months after the participant's first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Risk factors for PASC were evaluated, including sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics before SARS-CoV-2 infection (baseline comorbidities, trimester of infection, vaccination status), and acute infection severity (classified by need for oxygen therapy). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate associations between these characteristics and presence of PASC. RESULTS: Of the 1,502 participants, 61.1% had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection on or after December 1, 2021 (ie, during Omicron variant dominance); 51.4% were fully vaccinated before infection; and 182 (12.1%) were enrolled within 30 days of their acute infection. The prevalence of PASC was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.9-10.9%) measured at a median of 10.3 months (interquartile range 6.1-21.5) after first infection. The most common symptoms among individuals with PASC were postexertional malaise (77.7%), fatigue (76.3%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (61.2%). In a multivariable model, the proportion PASC positive with vs without history of obesity (14.9% vs 7.5%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65, 95% CI, 1.12-2.43), depression or anxiety disorder (14.4% vs 6.1%, aOR 2.64, 95% CI, 1.79-3.88) before first infection, economic hardship (self-reported difficulty covering expenses) (12.5% vs 6.9%, aOR 1.57, 95% CI, 1.05-2.34), and treatment with oxygen during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (18.1% vs 8.7%, aOR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.00-3.44) were associated with increased prevalence of PASC. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of PASC at a median time of 10.3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was 9.3% in the NIH RECOVER-Pregnancy Cohort. The predominant symptoms were postexertional malaise, fatigue, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Several socioeconomic and clinical characteristics were associated with PASC after infection during pregnancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05172024.

Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.

OBJECTIVE: To present primary care physician (PCP) suggestions for design and implementation of a decision aid (DA) tool to support patient-provider shared decision-making on lung cancer screening (LCS). STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 PCPs at an academic medical center. METHODS: The deidentified transcripts were independently coded by 2 study interviewers and jointly reviewed every 5 interviews until we determined that data saturation had been achieved. We then identified themes in the data and selected illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) make it brief and familiar (make the tool user-friendly and implement a similar format to other widely used DAs); (2) bring me to automation station (limit busywork; focus on the patient and on the decision); and (3) involve the patient (facilitate patient involvement in the DA with simple language, visual aids, and bullet-point takeaways). CONCLUSIONS: Findings contain concrete suggestions by PCPs to inform usable and acceptable LCS DA tool design and implementation. For an LCS DA to be most successful, PCPs emphasized that the tool must be easy to use and incorporate autopopulation functions to limit redundant patient charting.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities.

Introduction: Individuals with a history of smoking and a high risk of lung cancer often have a high prevalence of smoking-related comorbidities. The presence of these comorbidities might alter the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening by influencing the risk of complications, quality of life, and competing risks of death. Nevertheless, individuals with chronic diseases are underrepresented in screening clinical trials. In this study, we use microsimulation modeling to determine the impact of chronic diseases on lung cancer benefits and harms. Methods: We extended a validated lung cancer screening microsimulation model that comprehensively recapitulates an individual's lung cancer development, progression, detection, follow-up, treatment, and survival. We parameterized the model to reflect the impact of chronic diseases on complications from invasive testing, quality of life, and mortality in individuals in five-year age categories between the ages of 50 and 80 years. Outcomes included life-years (LY) gained per 100,000 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and history of stroke compared with screening-eligible individuals without comorbidities. Results: Among individuals between the ages of 50 and 54 years, we found that the presence of a comorbidity altered the LY gained from screening per 100,000 individuals depending on the comorbidity: 4296 LY with no comorbidities; 3462 LY, 3260 LY, 3031 LY, and 3257 LY with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, respectively. We observed greater reductions in LY gained in individuals with two comorbidities; we observed similar patterns for individuals between the ages of 55 and 59 years, 60 and 64 years, 65 and 69 years, 70 and 74 years, and 75 and 80 years. Conclusions: Comorbidities reduce LY gained from screening per 100,000 compared with no comorbidities, and our results can be used by clinicians when discussing the benefits and harms of screening in their patients with comorbidities.

Examining the Trajectory of Health-Related Quality of Life among Coronavirus Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported a reduction in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) among post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, there remains a gap in research examining the heterogeneity and determinants of HR-QoL trajectory in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe and identify factors explaining the variability in HR-QoL trajectories among a cohort of patients with history of COVID-19. DESIGN: A prospective study using data from a cohort of COVID-19 patients enrolled into a registry established at a health system in New York City. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were enrolled from July 2020 to June 2022, and completed a baseline evaluation and two follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months. METHODS: We assessed HR-QoL with the 29-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instrument, which was summarized into mental and physical health domains. We performed latent class growth and multinomial logistic regression to examine trajectories of HR-QoL and identify factors associated with specific trajectories. RESULTS: The study included 588 individuals with a median age of 52 years, 65% female, 54% White, 18% Black, and 18% Hispanic. We identified five physical health trajectories and four mental health trajectories. Female gender, having pre-existing hypertension, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and hospitalization for acute COVID-19 were independently associated with lower physical health. In addition, patients with increasing body mass index were more likely to experience lower physical health over time. Female gender, younger age, pre-existing asthma, arthritis and cardiovascular disease were associated with poor mental health. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant heterogeneity of HR-QoL after COVID-19, with women and patients with specific comorbidities at increased risk of lower HR-QoL. Implementation of targeted psychological and physical interventions is crucial for enhancing the quality of life of this patient population.

Greater executive dysfunction in patients post-COVID-19 compared to those not infected.

BACKGROUND: A number of patients post-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) report cognitive impairment (CI), even months after acute infection. We aimed to assess if COVID-19 is associated with increased incidence of CI in comparison to controls. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Mount Sinai Health System Post-COVID-19 Registry in New York City, a prospective cohort of patients post-COVID-19 ≥18 years of age and non-infected controls. CI was defined by scores ≥ 1.0 standard deviation below population norms, and was assessed using well-validated measures of attention, working memory, processing speed, executive functioning/cognitive flexibility, language, learning, and memory. Logistic regression models assessed odds for CI in each domain in patients post-COVID-19 vs. controls after adjusting for potential confounders. In exploratory analyses, we assessed odds for CI by site of acute COVID-19 care as a proxy for disease severity. FINDINGS: 417 patients post-COVID-19 and 151 controls (mean age 49 years, 63% female, 21% Black, 17% Latinx) were included. In adjusted analyses, patients were significantly more likely than controls to have CI in executive functioning (odds ratio [OR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 4.67), particularly those treated in outpatient (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.82) and inpatient hospital (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.27 to 10.16) settings. There were no significant associations between CI in other domains and history of COVID-19 or site of acute care. INTERPRETATION: Patients post-COVID-19 have greater odds of executive dysfunction, suggesting that focused cognitive screening may be prudent, even in those with mild to moderate disease. Studies should explore the pathophysiology and potential treatments for CI in this population. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Comparison of Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treatments for Patients Living With HIV: A Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading cause of death for people living with HIV (PWH). Nevertheless, there are no clinical trial data regarding the management of early-stage lung cancer in PWH. Using data from large HIV and cancer cohorts we parameterized a simulation model to compare treatments for stage I NSCLC according to patient characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To parameterize the model we analyzed PWH and NSCLC patient outcomes and quality of life data from several large cohort studies. Comparative effectiveness of 4 stage I NSCLC treatments (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge resection, and stereotactic body radiotherapy) was estimated using evidence synthesis methods. We then simulated trials comparing treatments according to quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains by age, tumor size and histology, HIV disease characteristics and major comorbidities. RESULTS: Lobectomy and segmentectomy yielded the greatest QALY gains among all simulated age, tumor size and comorbidity groups. Optimal treatment strategies differed by patient sex, age, and HIV disease status; wedge resection was among the optimal strategies for women aged 80 to 84 years with tumors 0 to 2 cm in size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy was included in some optimal strategies for patients aged 80 to 84 years with multimorbidity and in sensitivity analyses was a non-inferior option for many older patients or those with poor HIV disease control. CONCLUSION: In simulated comparative trials of treatments for stage I NSCLC in PWH, extensive surgical resection was often associated with the greatest projected QALY gains although less aggressive strategies were predicted to be non-inferior in some older, comorbid patient groups.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. METHODS: This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): Study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

Background. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. Methods. This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention ( LungTalk ) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. Discussion. This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. Trial Registration : The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings.

OBJECTIVE: To achieve the lung cancer screening (LCS) mortality benefit in clinical trials, timely, real-world follow-up of abnormal test results is necessary. Presently, annual LCS rates are lower than in trials, and adherence to follow-up after suspicious findings has not been well studied. This study examined timely adherence to follow-up recommendations after positive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings. METHODS: This retrospective study included individuals from two academic primary care practices in New York City who met United States Preventative Services Task Force LCS eligibility and had a positive LDCT scan between 2013 and 2020. They were recommended for shorter interval follow-up repeat computed tomography (CT), CT biopsy, or positron emission tomography/CT. Adherence was completion of the prescribed imaging by 15 days after the recommended 7-, 30-, and 90-day follow-up and by 30 days after the 180-day recommended follow-up. RESULTS: Among 106 individuals with a positive LDCT scan, 64 (60%) were adherent to follow-up recommendations. Adherence was 72%, 63%, and 42% for recommended follow-ups of 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Being male was a predictor of a lower adherence rate. Among 23 individuals newly diagnosed with lung cancer after a positive LDCT scan, 83% were adherent to follow-up testing and 82% of cancers were Stage 1A or limited stage. CONCLUSIONS: There was variable adherence to the LCS follow-up recommendations despite positive screening CT, suggesting that even in a well-established screening program there may not be an efficient, systematic approach for follow-up. The delays in repeat testing potentially undermine the benefits of early detection.

Patient impressions of the impact of comorbidities on lung cancer screening benefits and harms: A qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS. METHODS: We recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved. RESULTS: We achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.

Lung Cancer Screening and Stigma: Do Smoking-related Differences in Perceived Lung Cancer Stigma Emerge Prior to Diagnosis?

Background: Most lung cancer patients report experiencing stigma (i.e., devaluation based on one's lung cancer diagnosis), which is associated with adverse health outcomes. Lung cancer is stigmatized due to its robust association with smoking and the perception of the disease as self-inflicted. Purpose: Identifying sociodemographic and smoking-related correlates of perceived stigma among lung cancer screening-eligible adults (early in the cancer care trajectory) is needed to guide proactive psychosocial interventions to reduce stigma and improve health for patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer. Methods: A national sample of lung cancer screening-eligible adults (N = 515; 64.9% female) completed questionnaires on sociodemographic information, smoking-related characteristics, and perceived smoking-related lung cancer stigma. Zero-order and multivariate relationships between sociodemographic variables, smoking-related characteristics, and stigma were evaluated using Pearson's correlations, t-tests, ANOVAs, and multivariable regression. Results: The multivariable regression demonstrated that younger age (b = -0.05, p = .047) was associated significantly with higher stigma. Additionally, women (b = 0.63, p = .015), participants who reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (b = 1.07, p = .049), and those with a college degree or higher (all p ≤ .029) reported significantly higher stigma, compared to men, those who did not report Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and other education categories, respectively. None of the smoking-related characteristics were associated significantly with perceived stigma (all p > .12). Conclusions: Sociodemographic variables (rather than smoking-related characteristics) significantly and uniquely differentiated lung cancer screening-eligible adults' perception of lung cancer stigma. Smoking-related differences in lung cancer stigma may emerge following rather than prior to diagnosis.

The benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with major comorbidities: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy after resection of locoregional non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The relative benefits and harms and optimal approach to treatment for NSCLC patients who have major comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], coronary artery disease [CAD], and congestive heart failure [CHF]) are unclear, however. METHODS: We used a simulation model to run in-silico comparative trials of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in locoregional NSCLC in patients with comorbidities. The model estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by each treatment strategy stratified by age, comorbidity, and stage. The model was parameterized using outcomes and quality-of-life data from RCTs and primary analyses from large cancer databases. RESULTS: Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with clinically significant QALY gains for all patient age/stage combinations with COPD except for patients >80 years old with Stage IB and IIA cancers. For patients with CHF and Stage IB and IIA disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was not advantageous; in contrast, it was associated with QALY gains for more advanced stages for younger patients with CHF. For stages IIB and IIIA NSCLC, most patient groups benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, In general, patients with multiple comorbidities benefited less from adjuvant chemotherapy than those with single comorbidities and women with comorbidities in older age categories benefited more from adjuvant chemotherapy than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients may derive QALY gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after NSCLC surgery. These results help extend existing clinical trial data to specific unstudied, high-risk populations and may reduce the uncertainty regarding adjuvant chemotherapy use in these patients.

Assessment of treatment strategies for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in patients with comorbidities.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients frequently have major comorbidities but there is scarce data regarding the impact of these conditions on management strategies. We used simulation modeling to compare different treatments for stage I NSCLC for patients with common major comorbidities. METHODS: We used data on NSCLC patinet outcomes and quality of life from: (1) the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked to Medicare claims; (2) Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records; and (3) SEER-Medical Health Outcomes Survey to parameterize a novel simulation model of management and outcomes for stage I NSCLC. Relative efficacy of treatment modalities (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) was collected from existing literature and combined using evidence synthesis methods. We then simulated multiple randomized trials comparing these treatments in a variety of scenarios, estimating quality adjusted life expectancy (QALE) according to age, tumor size, histologic subtype, and comorbidity status. RESULTS: Lobectomy and segmentectomy yielded the greatest QALE gains among all simulated age, tumor size and comorbidity groups. Optimal treatment strategies differed by patient sex and age; wedge resection was among the optimal strategies for women aged 80-84 with tumors 0-2 cm in size. SBRT was included in some optimal strategies for patients aged 80-84 with multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated comparative trials of four common treatments for stage I NSCLC, aggressive surgical management was typically associated with the greatest projected QALE gains despite the presence of comorbidities, although less aggressive strategies were predicted to be non-inferior in some older comorbid patient groups.

Immunotherapy Outcomes in Individuals With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Poor Performance Status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in real-world practice typically have worse performance status (PS) compared with clinical trial patients, and the effectiveness of immunotherapy in this population in unknown. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of standard of care immunotherapy for the first-line treatment of stage IV patients with NSCLC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS greater than or equal to 2. METHODS: We selected ECOG PS greater than or equal to 2 patients from real-world oncology data from a deidentified database and included them if they were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC and had documented Programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] expression greater than 0. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy were compared with those who did not have any documented treatment. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50% treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy were compared with those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy and those without documented treatment. RESULTS: In our propensity score-adjusted analysis, patients with ECOG PS of at least 2 and tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy had statistically significantly better real-world overall survival compared with those without documented treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% confidence internal [CI] = 0.32 to 0.47). For patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50%, there was also a statistically significant real-world overall survival benefit for those who received treatment either with combination pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.46) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.70) compared with patients receiving no documented treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among a highly representative sample of patients with advanced NSCLC and poor PS, our findings suggest that immunotherapy may provide an important survival benefit in individuals with high PD-(L)1-expressing tumors and in conjunction with chemotherapy in tumors with low PD-(L)1 expression.

Impact of Comorbidities on Lung Cancer Screening Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: We used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to examine the impact of self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus on diagnostic complications in lung cancer screening evaluation. METHODS: In our analysis, we included individuals from the usual care and intervention (annual chest x-ray) of the lung cancer screening trial with equal or greater than 55 years of age with a 20 pack-year smoking history who had undergone an invasive procedure. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of comorbidity on procedure complication. Our primary outcome was the incidence of major or moderate complications. RESULTS: Features associated with high-risk complication included older age (OR = 1.03 per year, P = .001), history of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.40, P = .03), history of diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.41, P < .001, current smoking status (OR = 1.46, P ≤ .001), surgical biopsy (OR = 7.39, P < .001), needle biopsy (OR = 1.94, P < .001), and other invasive procedure (OR = 1.58, P < .001). We did not find an associated with complication and history of stroke (OR = 0.84, P = .53) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.27, P = .06). CONCLUSION: Patient and procedure-level factors may alter the benefits of lung cancer screening. Data concerning individual risk factors and high-risk complications should therefore be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms to optimize clinical benefit and minimize harm. Further study and validation of the risk factors identified herein are warranted.

Association of Vaccination with the Persistence of Post-COVID Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have had COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms after resolution of their acute illness. Recent reports suggest that vaccination may be associated with improvement in post-acute symptoms. We used data from a prospective cohort to assess differences in post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC) among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. METHODS: We used data from a cohort of COVID-19 patients enrolled into a prospective registry established at a tertiary care health system in New York City. Participants underwent a baseline evaluation before COVID-19 vaccines were available and were followed 6 months later. We compared unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted baseline to 6-month change for several PASC-related symptoms and measures: anosmia, respiratory (cough, dyspnea, phlegm, wheezing), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; COVID-19-related and other trauma), and quality-of-life domains among participants who received vs. those who did not receive COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: The study included 453 COVID-19 patients with PASC, of which 324 (72%) were vaccinated between the baseline and 6-month visit. Unadjusted analyses did not show significant differences in the baseline to 6-month change in anosmia, respiratory symptoms, depression, anxiety, PTSD, or quality of life (p > 0.05 for all comparisons) among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. Similar results were found in propensity-adjusted comparisons and in secondary analyses based on the number of vaccine doses received. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that COVID vaccination is not associated with improvement in PASC. Additional studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying PASC and to develop effective treatments.

Risk of Cardiovascular Toxicity According to Tumor Laterality Among Older Patients With Early Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of cardiovascular outcomes from either stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to treat early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is largely unknown. As continued adoption of SBRT accelerates, it is important to delineate unforeseen cardiovascular risks associated with treatment. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the long-term risk of cardiovascular outcomes for patients with early stage NSCLC treated with either SBRT or 3DCRT plus IMRT differ by tumor laterality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry linked to Medicare was analyzed to identify a sample of 3,256 patients (1,506 treated with SBRT and 1,750 treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT) with node-negative stage I or IIA NSCLC. Cardiovascular events were identified using diagnosis codes, and outcomes were compared between left- and right-sided tumors. We assumed that tumor laterality was random and that the radiation field for left-sided tumors likely would result in greater dose to cardiac tissues. Cox regression models were fit to quantify the association of laterality on outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for a median of 2 years. Those treated with SBRT showed no difference in hazard of any cardiovascular outcomes by tumor laterality, including the cardiovascular composite (hazard ratio [HR] comparing left- vs right-sided tumors, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15). In contrast, patients treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT showed a greater risk of congestive heart failure (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48) and percutaneous coronary artery intervention (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.47). INTERPRETATION: Patients with left- vs right-sided early stage NSCLC showed similar rates of cardiovascular events when treated with SBRT. However, these patients also showed higher rates of select cardiac events when they were treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT. This study provides evidence that SBRT may provide a safer option over 3DCRT plus IMRT for patients with left-sided early stage NSCLC and underscores the need for long-term follow-up for patients treated with radiation therapy.

A FLEXIBLE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING WITH MULTIPLE TREATMENTS AND A BINARY OUTCOME WITH APPLICATION TO SEER-MEDICARE LUNG CANCER DATA.

In the absence of a randomized experiment, a key assumption for drawing causal inference about treatment effects is the ignorable treatment assignment. Violations of the ignorability assumption may lead to biased treatment effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis helps gauge how causal conclusions will be altered in response to the potential magnitude of departure from the ignorability assumption. However, sensitivity analysis approaches for unmeasured confounding in the context of multiple treatments and binary outcomes are scarce. We propose a flexible Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis approach for causal inference in such settings. We first derive the general form of the bias introduced by unmeasured confounding, with emphasis on theoretical properties uniquely relevant to multiple treatments. We then propose methods to encode the impact of unmeasured confounding on potential outcomes and adjust the estimates of causal effects in which the presumed unmeasured confounding is removed. Our proposed methods embed nested multiple imputation within the Bayesian framework, which allow for seamless integration of the uncertainty about the values of the sensitivity parameters and the sampling variability, as well as use of the Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for modeling flexibility. Expansive simulations validate our methods and gain insight into sensitivity analysis with multiple treatments. We use the SEER-Medicare data to demonstrate sensitivity analysis using three treatments for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. The methods developed in this work are readily available in the R package SAMTx.