COVID-19 outcomes in persons with hemophilia: results from a US-based national COVID-19 surveillance registry.

INTRODUCTION: Hypercoagulable state contributing to thrombotic complications worsens COVID-19 severity and outcomes, while anticoagulation improves outcomes by alleviating hypercoagulability. OBJECTIVES: Examine whether hemophilia, an inherent hypocoagulable condition, offers protection against COVID-19 severity and reduces VTE risk in persons with hemophilia (PwH). PATIENTS/METHODS: A 1: 3 propensity score (PS) matched retrospective cohort study used national COVID-19 registry data (January 2020 through January 2022) to compare outcomes between 300 male PwH and 900 matched controls without hemophilia. RESULTS: Analyses of PwH demonstrated known risk-factors (older age, heart failure, hypertension, cancer/malignancy, dementia, renal and liver disease) contributed to severe COVID-19 and/or 30-day-all-cause mortality. Non-CNS bleeding was an additional risk-factor for poor outcomes in PwH. Odds of developing VTE with COVID-19 in PwH were associated with pre-COVID VTE diagnosis (OR 51.9, 95% CI 12.8-266, p<0.001), anticoagulation therapy (OR 12.7, 95% CI 3.01-48.6, p<0.001) and pulmonary disease (OR 16.1, 95% CI 10.4-25.4, p<0.001). Thirty-day-all-cause-mortality (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.11, p=0.3), and VTE events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.64-2.73, p=0.4) were not significantly different between matched cohorts; however, hospitalizations (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20-2.10, p 0.001) and non-CNS bleeding events (OR 4.78, 95% CI 2.98-7.48, p<0.001) were increased in PwH. In multivariate analyses, hemophilia did not reduce adverse outcomes (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74-2.31, p 0.2) nor VTE (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.44-2.67, p 0.8) but increased bleeding risk (OR 4.70, 95% CI 2.98-7.48, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for patient characteristics/comorbidities, hemophilia increased bleeding risk with COVID-19 but did not protect against severe disease and VTE.

Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Rural and urban differences in perceptions, behaviors, and health care disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess perceptions, health behaviors, and disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic in a largely rural, Midwestern state, and to examine differences between rural and urban respondents. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed August 2020 to a sample of 10,009 registered voters in Iowa ages 18-100 years, with oversampling from 6 select rural counties. Previously validated and tested items assessed COVID-19 precautions, health care disruptions, emotional reactions, health behavior changes, telehealth and experiences with the internet, and demographic characteristics. FINDINGS: There were 4,048 respondents (40% response rate); 65% were rural and 35% were urban residents. The average age of respondents was 58.3 years and 45% of respondents identified as female. Rural respondents reported less concern about COVID-19 in their community (29% vs 40%, P<.001) and lower perceived importance of social distancing (51% vs 64%, P<.001). Urban respondents more often reported experiencing disruption to daily living, stronger negative emotional reactions, and displayed more pronounced behavior change compared to their rural counterparts. For example, urban respondents reported more pandemic-related job losses (6% vs 4%, P = .05), disruptions to daily activities (48% vs 35%, P<.001), and use of telehealth services during the pandemic (24% vs 16%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents reported disruptions to normal activities, medical appointment cancellations, and emotional distress during the first 6 months of the pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on urban residents appeared to be greater than for rural respondents. Timing of pandemic spread and varying beliefs are potential explanations.