Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Long-Term Depression Symptoms among Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Prior research demonstrates that SARS-COV-2 infection can be associated with a broad range of mental health outcomes including depression symptoms. Veterans, in particular, may be at elevated risk of increased depression following SARS-COV-2 infection given their high rates of pre-existing mental and physical health comorbidities. However, few studies have tried to isolate SARS-COV-2 infection associations with long term, patient-reported depression symptoms from other factors (e.g., physical health comorbidities, pandemic-related stress). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between SARS-COV-2 infection and subsequent depression symptoms among United States Military Veterans. DESIGN: Survey-based non-randomized cohort study with matched comparators. PARTICIPANTS: A matched-dyadic sample from a larger, stratified random sample of participants with and without known to SARS-COV-2 infection were invited to participate in a survey evaluating mental health and wellness 18-months after their index infection date. Sampled participants were stratified by infection severity of the participant infected with SARS-COV-2 (hospitalized or not) and by month of index date. A total of 186 participants in each group agreed to participate in the survey and had sufficient data for inclusion in analyses. Those in the uninfected group who were later infected were excluded from analyses. MAIN MEASURES: Participants were administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as part of a phone interview survey. Demographics, physical and mental health comorbidities were extracted from VHA administrative data. KEY RESULTS: Veterans infected with SARS-COV-2 had significantly higher depression symptoms scores compared with those uninfected. In particular, psychological symptoms (e.g., low mood, suicidal ideation) scores were elevated relative to the comparator group (MInfected = 3.16, 95%CI: 2.5, 3.8; MUninfected = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.4, 2.5). Findings were similar regardless of history of depression. CONCLUSION: SARS-COV-2 infection was associated with more depression symptoms among Veterans at 18-months post-infection. Routine evaluation of depression symptoms over time following SARS-COV-2 infection is important to facilitate adequate assessment and treatment.

Risk of Suicide-Related Outcomes After SARS-COV-2 Infection: Results from a Nationwide Observational Matched Cohort of US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Negative mental health-related effects of SARS-COV-2 infection are increasingly evident. However, the impact on suicide-related outcomes is poorly understood, especially among populations at elevated risk. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk of suicide attempts and other self-directed violence (SDV) after SARS-COV-2 infection in a high-risk population. DESIGN: We employed an observational design supported by comprehensive electronic health records from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to examine the association of SARS-COV-2 infection with suicide attempts and other SDV within one year of infection. Veterans with SARS-COV-2 infections were matched 1:5 with non-infected comparators each month. Three periods after index were evaluated: days 1-30, days 31-365, and days 1-365. PARTICIPANTS: VHA patients infected with SARS-COV-2 between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 and matched non-infected Veteran comparators. MAIN MEASURES: Suicide attempt and other SDV events for the COVID-19 and non-infected comparator groups were analyzed using incidence rates per 100,000 person years and hazard ratios from Cox regressions modeling time from matched index date to first event. Subgroups were also examined. KEY RESULTS: 198,938 veterans with SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19 group) and 992,036 comparators were included. Unadjusted one-year incidence per 100,000 for suicide attempt and other SDV was higher among the COVID-19 group: 355 vs 250 and 327 vs 235, respectively. The COVID-19 group had higher risk than comparators for suicide attempts: days 1-30 hazard ratio (HR) = 2.54 (CI:2.05, 3.15), days 31-365 HR = 1.30 (CI:1.19, 1.43) and days 1-365 HR = 1.41 (CI:1.30, 1.54), and for other SDV: days 1-30 HR = 1.94 (CI:1.51, 2.49), days 31-365 HR = 1.32 (CI:1.20, 1.45) and days 1-365 HR = 1.38 (CI:1.26, 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients had higher risks of both suicide attempts and other forms of SDV compared to uninfected comparators, which persisted for at least one year after infection. Results support suicide risk screening of those infected with SARS-COV-2 to identify opportunities to prevent self-harm.

Financial hardship after COVID-19 infection among US Veterans: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests an association between COVID-19 infection and certain financial hardships in the shorter term and among single-state and privately insured samples. Whether COVID-19 is associated with financial hardship in the longer-term or among socially vulnerable populations is unknown. Therefore, we examined whether COVID-19 was associated with a range of financial hardships 18 months after initial infection among a national cohort of Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-the largest national integrated health system in the US. We additionally explored the association between Veteran characteristics and financial hardship during the pandemic, irrespective of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, telephone-based survey. Out of 600 Veterans with COVID-19 from October 2020 through April 2021 who were invited to participate, 194 Veterans with COVID-19 and 194 matched comparators without a history of infection participated. Financial hardship outcomes included overall health-related financial strain, two behavioral financial hardships (e.g., taking less medication than prescribed due to cost), and seven material financial hardships (e.g., using up most or all savings). Weighted generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of financial hardship by COVID-19 status, and to assess the relationship between infection and Veteran age, VHA copay status, and comorbidity score, irrespective of COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Among 388 respondents, 67% reported at least one type of financial hardship since March 2020, with 21% reporting behavioral hardships and 64% material hardships; 8% reported severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain. Compared with uninfected matched comparators, Veterans with a history of COVID-19 had greater risks of severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain (RR: 4.0, CI: 1.4-11.2), taking less medication due to cost (RR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.0-8.6), and having a loved one take time off work to care for them (RR: 1.9, CI: 1.1-3.6). Irrespective of COVID-19 status, Veterans aged < 65 years had a greater risk of most financial hardships compared with Veterans aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related financial hardships such as taking less medication due to cost and severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain were more common among Veterans with a history of COVID-19 than among matched comparators. Strategies are needed to address health-related financial hardship after COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05394025, registered 05-27-2022.

Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Against the Development of Post-COVID-19 Conditions Among U.S. Veterans : A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been linked to the development of many post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) after acute infection. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of oral antivirals used to treat acute COVID-19 in preventing the development of PCCs. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing PCCs. DESIGN: Retrospective target trial emulation study comparing matched cohorts receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration (VHA). PARTICIPANTS: Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022. INTERVENTION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19. MEASUREMENTS: Cumulative incidence of 31 potential PCCs at 31 to 180 days after treatment or a matched index date, including cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and general conditions and symptoms. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of the participants were male, with a median age of 66 years, and 17.5% were unvaccinated. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and matched untreated comparators. No differences were observed between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 9593) and their matched untreated comparators in the incidence of most PCCs examined individually or grouped by organ system, except for lower combined risk for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (subhazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97]; cumulative incidence difference, -0.29 percentage points [CI, -0.52 to -0.05 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: Ascertainment of PCCs using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes may be inaccurate. Evaluation of many outcomes could have resulted in spurious associations with combined thromboembolic events by chance. CONCLUSION: Out of 31 potential PCCs, only combined thromboembolic events seemed to be reduced by nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Treatment With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir or Molnupiravir Among U.S. Veterans: Target Trial Emulation Studies With One-Month and Six-Month Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Information about the effectiveness of oral antivirals in preventing short- and long-term COVID-19-related outcomes in the setting of Omicron variant transmission and COVID-19 vaccination is limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir for outpatient treatment of COVID-19. DESIGN: Three retrospective target trial emulation studies comparing matched cohorts of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment, molnupiravir versus no treatment, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus molnupiravir. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration (VHA). PARTICIPANTS: Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022. INTERVENTION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir pharmacotherapy. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days and from 31 to 180 days. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of participants were male; the median age was 66 years, and 18% were unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated control participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 9607) had lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (22.07 vs. 30.32 per 1000 participants; risk difference [RD], -8.25 [95% CI, -12.27 to -4.23] per 1000 participants) and death (1.25 vs. 5.47 per 1000 participants; RD, -4.22 [CI, -5.45 to -3.00] per 1000 participants). Among persons alive at day 31, reductions were seen in 31- to 180-day incidence of death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.49 to 0.89]) but not hospitalization (subhazard ratio, 0.90 [CI, 0.79 to 1.02]). Molnupiravir-treated participants (n = 3504) had lower 30-day and 31- to 180-day risks for death (3.14 vs. 13.56 per 1000 participants at 30 days; RD, -10.42 [CI, -13.49 to -7.35] per 1000 participants; hazard ratio at 31 to 180 days, 0.67 [CI, 0.48 to 0.95]) but not hospitalization. A difference in 30-day or 31- to 180-day risk for hospitalization or death was not observed between matched nirmatrelvir- or molnupiravir-treated participants. LIMITATION: The date of COVID-19 symptom onset for most veterans was unknown. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death. Molnupiravir was associated with a benefit for 30-day mortality but not hospitalization. Further reductions in mortality from 31 to 180 days were observed with both antivirals. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Young Adult Patients with Severe Sepsis Admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Units Versus Medical/Surgical Intensive Care Units.

Purpose: Young adults receive severe sepsis treatment across pediatric and adult care settings. However, little is known about young adult sepsis outcome differences in pediatric versus adult hospital settings. Material and Methods: Using Truven MarketScan database from 2010-2015, we compared in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay in young adults ages 18-26 treated for severe sepsis in Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) versus Medical ICUs (MICUs)/Surgical ICUs (SICUs) using logistic regression models and accelerated time failure models, respectively. Comorbidities were identified using Complex Chronic Conditions (CCC) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Results: Of the 18 900 young adults hospitalized with severe sepsis, 163 (0.9%) were treated in the PICU and 952 (5.0%) in the MICU/SICU. PICU patients were more likely to have a comorbid condition compared to MICU/SICU patients. Compared to PICU patients, MICU/SICU patients had a lower odds of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for age, sex, Medicaid status, and comorbidities (adjusting for CCC, odds ratio [OR]: 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.89; adjusting for CCI, OR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.94). There was no difference in adjusted length of stay for young adults with severe sepsis (adjusting for CCC, Event Time Ratio [ETR]: 1.14, 95% CI 0.94-1.38; adjusting for CCI, ETR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.90-1.33). Conclusions: Young adults with severe sepsis experience higher adjusted odds of mortality when treated in PICUs versus MICU/SICUs. However, there was no difference in length of stay. Variation in mortality is likely due to significant differences in the patient populations, including comorbidity status.

Differences in international medical graduates' letters of recommendation by gender in pulmonary and critical care medicine: a cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: International Medical Graduates (IMGs) encounter barriers as they seek to match into fellowship programs in the United States (US). This study's objective is to determine if there are differences in letters of recommendation written for IMGs compared to U.S. Medical Graduates (USMGs) applying to pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs. METHODS: All applications submitted to a PCCM fellowship program in 2021 were included in this study. The applicant demographics and accomplishments were mined from applications. The gender of letter writers was identified by the author's pronouns on professional websites. Word count and language differences in the letters were analyzed for each applicant using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LWIC2015) program. Multivariable linear regressions were performed controlling for applicant characteristics to identify if IMG status was associated with total word count and degree of support, measured by a composite outcome encompassing several categories of adjectives, compared to USMG status. RESULTS: Of the 573 applications, most of the applicants were USMGs (72%, N = 334/573). When adjusting for applicant characteristics, IMG applicants had shorter letters of recommendation (87.81 total words shorter 95% CI: - 118.61, - 57.00, p-value < 0.01) and less supportive letters (4.79 composite words shorter 95% CI: - 6.61, - 2.97, p-value < 0.01), as compared to USMG applicants. Notably, female IMG applicants had the biggest difference in their word counts compared to USMG applicants when the letter writer was a man. CONCLUSIONS: IMG applicants to a PCCM fellowship received shorter and less supportive letters of recommendation compared to USMG applicants.

Wellness and Coping of Physicians Who Worked in ICUs During the Pandemic: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional North American Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

Veterans Affairs patient database (VAPD 2014-2017): building nationwide granular data for clinical discovery.

BACKGROUND: To study patient physiology throughout a period of acute hospitalization, we sought to create accessible, standardized nationwide data at the level of the individual patient-facility-day. This methodology paper summarizes the development, organization, and characteristics of the Veterans Affairs Patient Database 2014-2017 (VAPD 2014-2017). The VAPD 2014-2017 contains acute hospitalizations from all parts of the nationwide VA healthcare system with daily physiology including clinical data (labs, vitals, medications, risk scores, etc.), intensive care unit (ICU) indicators, facility, patient, and hospitalization characteristics. METHODS: The VA data structure and database organization represents a complex multi-hospital system. We define a single-site hospitalization as one or more consecutive stays with an acute treating specialty at a single facility. The VAPD 2014-2017 is structured at the patient-facility-day level, where every patient-day in a hospital is a row with separate identification variables for facility, patient, and hospitalization. The VAPD 2014-2017 includes daily laboratory, vital signs, and inpatient medication. Such data were validated and verified through lab value range and comparison with patient charts. Sepsis, risk scores, and organ dysfunction definitions were standardized and calculated. RESULTS: We identified 565,242 single-site hospitalizations (SSHs) in 2014; 558,060 SSHs in 2015; 553,961 SSHs in 2016; and 550,236 SSHs in 2017 at 141 VA hospitals. The average length of stay was four days for all study years. In-hospital mortality decreased from 2014 to 2017 (1.7 to 1.4%), 30-day readmission rates increased from 15.3% in 2014 to 15.6% in 2017; 30-day mortality also decreased from 4.4% in 2014 to 4.1% in 2017. From 2014 to 2017, there were 107,512 (4.8%) of SSHs that met the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Electronic Health Record-based retrospective definition of sepsis. CONCLUSION: The VAPD 2014-2017 represents a large, standardized collection of granular data from a heterogeneous nationwide healthcare system. It is also a direct resource for studying the evolution of inpatient physiology during both acute and critical illness.

Time-Limited Trials in the Intensive Care Unit to Promote Goal-Concordant Patient Care.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 75-year-old patient admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to pneumonia and systolic heart failure. Although she suffers from a potentially treatable infection, her advanced age and chronic illness increase her risk of experiencing a poor outcome. Her family feels conflicted about whether the use of mechanical ventilation would be acceptable given what they understand about her values and preferences. In the ICU setting, clinicians, patients, and surrogate decision-makers frequently face challenges of prognostic uncertainty as well as uncertainty regarding patients' goals and values. Time-limited trials (TLTs) of life-sustaining treatments in the ICU have been proposed as one strategy to help facilitate goal-concordant care in the midst of a complex and high-stakes decision-making environment. TLTs represent an agreement between clinicians and patients or surrogate decision-makers to employ a therapy for an agreed-upon time period, with a plan for subsequent reassessment of the patient's progress according to previously-established criteria for improvement or decline. Herein, we review the concept of TLTs in intensive care, and explore their potential benefits, barriers, and challenges. Research demonstrates that, in practice, TLTs are conducted infrequently and often incompletely, and are challenged by system-level factors that diminish their effectiveness. The promise of TLTs in intensive care warrants continued research efforts, including implementation studies to improve adoption and fidelity, observational research to determine optimal timeframes for TLTs, and interventional trials to determine if TLTs ultimately improve the delivery of goal-concordant care in the ICU.

Responding to the ripple effects of sexual harassment: an emergency management framework.

Sexual harassment in academia is endemic driven by gender-based inequalities and sustained through organizational tolerance, and its impact extends beyond the primary victim(s). Applying principles of emergency management provides a framework for institutions to balance their obligations to the primary victim(s) while also acknowledging the need to restore the well-being and culture of secondary victims.

The Association of Pregnancy With Outcomes Among Critically Ill Reproductive-Aged Women: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The maternal mortality rate in the United States is unacceptably high. However, the relative contribution of pregnancy to these outcomes is unknown. Studies comparing outcomes among pregnant vs nonpregnant critically ill patients show mixed results and are limited by small sample sizes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association of pregnancy with critical illness outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women 18 to 55 years of age who received invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) on hospital day 0 or 1 or who demonstrated sepsis on admission (infection with organ failure) discharged from Premier Healthcare Database hospitals from 2008 through 2021. The exposure was pregnancy. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We created propensity scores for pregnancy (using patient and hospital characteristics) and performed 1:1 propensity score matching without replacement within age strata (to ensure exact age matching). We performed multilevel multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression for propensity-matched pairs with pair as a random effect. RESULTS: Three thousand ninety-three pairs were included in the matched MV cohort, and 13,002 pairs were included in the sepsis cohort. The characteristics of both cohorts were well balanced (all standard mean differences, < 0.1). Among matched pairs, unadjusted mortality was 8.0% vs 13.8% for MV and 1.4% vs 2.3% for sepsis among pregnant and nonpregnant patients, respectively. In adjusted regression, pregnancy was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality (MV: OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.60; P < .001; sepsis: OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67; P < .001). INTERPRETATION: In this large US cohort, critically ill pregnant women receiving MV or with sepsis showed better survival than propensity score-matched nonpregnant women. These findings must be interpreted in the context of likely residual confounding.

Time-Limited Trials for Patients With Critical Illness: A Review of the Literature.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Since the 1990s, time-limited trials have been described as an approach to navigate uncertain benefits and limits of life-sustaining therapies in patients with critical illness. In this review, we aim to synthesize the evidence on time-limited trials in critical care, establish what is known, and highlight important knowledge gaps. REVIEW FINDINGS: We identified 18 empirical studies and 15 ethical analyses about time-limited trials in patients with critical illness. Observational studies suggest time-limited trials are part of current practice in ICUs in the United States, but their use varies according to unit and physician factors. Some ICU physicians are familiar with, endorse, and have participated in time-limited trials, and some older adults appear to favor time-limited trial strategies over indefinite life-sustaining therapy or care immediately focused on comfort. When time-limited trials are used, they are often implemented incompletely and challenged by systematic barriers (eg, continually rotating ICU staff). Predictive modeling studies support prevailing clinical wisdom that prognostic uncertainty decreases over time in the ICU for some patients. One study prospectively comparing usual ICU care with an intervention designed to support time-limited trials yielded promising preliminary results. Ethical analyses describe time-limited trials as a pragmatic approach within the longstanding discussion about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapies. SUMMARY: Time-limited trials are endorsed by physicians, align with the priorities of some older adults, and are part of current practice. Substantial efforts are needed to test their impact on patient-centered outcomes, improve their implementation, and maximize their potential benefit.