Impact of the Timing of Stay-at-Home Orders and Mobility Reductions on First-Wave COVID-19 Deaths in US Counties.

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission continues to evolve, understanding the contribution of location-specific variations in nonpharmaceutical interventions and behaviors to disease transmission during the initial epidemic wave will be key for future control strategies. We offer a rigorous statistical analysis of the relative effectiveness of the timing of both official stay-at-home orders and population mobility reductions during the initial stage of the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. We used a Bayesian hierarchical regression to fit county-level mortality data from the first case on January 21, 2020, through April 20, 2020, and quantify associations between the timing of stay-at-home orders and population mobility with epidemic control. We found that among 882 counties with an early local epidemic, a 10-day delay in the enactment of stay-at-home orders would have been associated with 14,700 additional deaths by April 20 (95% credible interval: 9,100, 21,500), whereas shifting orders 10 days earlier would have been associated with nearly 15,700 fewer lives lost (95% credible interval: 11,350, 18,950). Analogous estimates are available for reductions in mobility-which typically occurred before stay-at-home orders-and are also stratified by county urbanicity, showing significant heterogeneity. Results underscore the importance of timely policy and behavioral action for early-stage epidemic control.

Hospitalization burden and survival among older glioblastoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Half of all glioblastoma patients are at least 65 years old. The frequency and duration of hospitalization from disease- and treatment-related morbidity in this population are unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study among patients aged 65 years and older with glioblastoma diagnosed between 1999 and 2007 using SEER-Medicare linked data. Diagnoses and procedures were identified using administrative claims data. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of high hospitalization burden. RESULTS: Among the 5029 patients in the cohort, 52% were ages 65-74, and 52% were male. Twenty-six percent of patients underwent extensive resection, 72% received radiotherapy, and 18% received temozolomide. Median survival was 4.9 months. Among all patients, 21% were hospitalized at least 30 cumulative days between diagnosis and death, and 22% of all patients spent at least one-fourth of their remaining lives as inpatients. Higher comorbidity score (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42-2.07) and black race (AHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18) were associated with an increased risk of being hospitalized for at least 25% of remaining life, whereas radiation (AHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.58), temozolomide (AHR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23-0.42), and extensive surgery (AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99) were associated with a decreased risk. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the burden of hospitalization faced by a large proportion of older glioblastoma patients. In the setting of short survival, strategies to reduce the amount of time these patients spend hospitalized are urgently needed, to help maintain quality of life at the end of life.

Substance use in vulnerable patients with orofacial injury: prevalence, correlates, and unmet service needs.

BACKGROUND: A large portion of the injuries treated at urban trauma centers are preventable with alcohol and substance use presenting as common antecedent risk factors. METHODS: Alcohol and drug use characteristics of vulnerable adults treated for intentional orofacial injury at a regional trauma center were investigated. Patients (N = 154) presenting with intentional facial injury were recruited. Patients were considered eligible for recruitment if they were adults, recently used alcohol or drugs, and had a fracture within the 30 days preceding recruitment that involved the jaw, orbit, nose, or cheekbone as determined by clinical history, examination, and radiographic findings and that injury was due to interpersonal violence. RESULTS: This patient cohort evidenced significant levels of alcohol use, with 58% of our patient cohort meeting the criteria for problem drinking. Although lower than alcohol use rates, the reported use of illicit drugs was substantial. Almost half of the sample reported other substance use in the previous month, with 24% meeting the criteria for problem drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the very high percentage of individuals needing alcohol or drug treatment, only a small proportion of the patient sample reported having seen a professional for alcohol or drug treatment. Integrating substance use services into trauma care is discussed.

Do the benefits of rigid internal fixation of mandible fractures justify the added costs? Results from a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Owing to its putative advantages over conventional maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), open-reduction and rigid internal fixation (ORIF) is used frequently to treat mandible fractures, particularly in noncompliant patients. The resource-intensive nature of ORIF, the large variation in its use, and the lack of systematic studies substantiating ORIF attributed benefits compel a randomized controlled investigation comparing ORIF to MMF treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether ORIF provides better clinical and functional outcomes than MMF in noncomplying type of patients with a similar range of mandible fracture severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a total of 336 patients who sought treatment for mandible fractures, 142 patients with moderately severe mandible fractures were assigned randomly to receive MMF or ORIF and followed prospectively for 12 months. A variety of clinician and patient-reported measures were used to assess outcomes at the 1, 6, and 12 months follow-up visits. These measures included clinician-reported number of surgical complications, patient-reported number of complaints, as well as cumulative costs of treatment. Pain intensity was measured on a 10-point scale and the 12-item General Oral Health Assessment Index was used to assess the patients' oral health-related quality of life. Because the protocol allowed clinical judgment to overrule the randomly assigned treatment, outcomes were compared on an "intent-to-treat" basis as well as in terms of actual treatment received. RESULTS: The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the injury did not differ among the 2 groups. On an intent-to-treat basis, the difference in complication rates was not significant but favored MMF; 8.1% of patients developed complications with MMF versus 12.5% with ORIF. Differences in the rate of patient complaints were not significant on an intent-to-treat basis, but a significant between-group difference (P = .012) favoring MMF was noted on an as-treated basis at the 1 month recall, with 40% of ORIF patients reporting greater than 1 complaint versus 18.8% of MMF patients. No significant differences were detected between the 2 treatment groups at any time point with respect to oral health-related quality of life reflected by the General Oral Health Assessment Index scores. In-patient days and total costs did not differ significantly on an intent-to-treat basis, but on an as-treated basis, patients treated with MMF had fewer in-patient days on average (1.64 vs 5.50 for ORIF) and lower average costs of treatment ($7,206 vs $26,089 for ORIF). In the intent-to-treat analyses, patients receiving MMF treatment had significantly lower (P = .05) pain scores at the 12-month recall (mean = 0.58, SE = 0.30) compared with patients assigned to ORIF (mean = 1.78, SE = 0.52). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show a clear overall benefit of the resource-intensive ORIF over conventional MMF treatment in the management of moderately severe mandible fractures in at-risk patients; our data instead suggest some cost as well as oral health quality-of-life advantages for the use of MMF in this patient population.

Accuracy of data collected by surgical residents.

PURPOSE: Clinician records are the primary information source for assessing the quality of facial injury care, billing, risk management, planning of health services, and health-system management and reporting. Inaccuracies obscure outcomes assessment and affect the planning of health services. We sought to determine the accuracy of the clinician collected data by comparing them to similar information elicited by professional interviewers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We abstracted admissions data from the medical records of 185 patients treated for orofacial injury between January 2005 and January 2007. Clinician data on sociodemographics and substance use were compared with similar information elicited by trained research staff as part of a prospective study. RESULTS: The accuracy of the clinician data sets varied considerably depending on the variable. Concordance with the interviewer data sets was highest for age (paired t test P = .09), gender (kappa = 1), and ethnicity (kappa = .84) but dropped off considerably for marital status (kappa = .22) and alcohol (kappa = .18) and drug use (kappa = .16). The missing data per variable ranged from 4.5% (gender) to 46.9% (employment and education). CONCLUSIONS: Although more research is needed to evaluate the cause of inaccuracies and the relative contributions of patient, provider, and system level effects, it seems that significant inaccuracies in administrative data are common. In particular, patient information collected by surgical residents under-reports substance use behaviors. Interventions aimed at identifying the sources and correcting these errors are necessary.