Non-pharmaceutical interventions and covid-19 burden in the United States: retrospective, observational cohort study

Objective To evaluate the adoption and discontinuation of four broadly used non-pharmaceutical interventions on shifts in the covid-19 burden among US states. Design Retrospective, observational cohort study. Setting US state data on covid-19 between 19 January 2020 and 7 March 2021. Participants US population with a diagnosis of covid-19. Main outcome measures Empirically derived breakpoints in case and mortality velocities (ie, rate of change) were used to identify periods of stable, decreasing, or increasing covid-19 burden. Associations between adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions and subsequent decreases in case or death rates were estimated by use of generalised linear models accounting for weekly variability across US states. State level case and mortality counts per day were obtained from the Covid-19 Tracking Project. State level policies on non-pharmaceutical interventions included stay-at-home orders, indoor public gathering bans (mild >10 or severe ≤10 people), indoor restaurant dining bans, and public mask mandates. National policies were not included in statistical models. Results 28 602 830 cases and 511 899 deaths were recorded during the study. Odds of a reduction in covid-19 case velocity increased for stay-at-home orders (odds ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 2.52), indoor dining bans (1.62, 1.25 to 2.10), public mask mandates (2.18, 1.47 to 3.23), and severe indoor public gathering bans (1.68, 1.31 to 2.16) in univariate analysis. In mutually adjusted models, odds remained elevated for orders to stay at home (adjusted odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.07) and public mask mandates (2.27, 1.51 to 3.41). Stay-at-home orders (odds ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 2.62;adjusted odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.87) was also associated with a greater likelihood of decrease in death velocity in unadjusted and adjusted models. Conclusions State level non-pharmaceutical interventions used in the US during the covid-19 pandemic, in particular stay-at-home orders, were associated with a decreased covid-19 burden.

A Comparison of COVID-19 and Influenza-Associated Myocarditis: A Nationwide Study in the United States.

We aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of adult patients hospitalized with myocarditis and either concomitant corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or influenza, and elucidate clinical predictors associated with adverse outcomes in both groups. The study used the national inpatient sample (NIS) from 2019 to 2020 to identify 27,725 adult myocarditis hospitalizations, of which 5840 had concomitant COVID-19 and 1045 had concomitant influenza. After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality from myocarditis was significantly higher in COVID-19 compared to influenza. Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities and be older than those with influenza-associated myocarditis. Predictors of mortality were also different in both groups.

Impact of COVID-19 on Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized With STEMI: A Nationwide Propensity-matched Analysis.

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and concurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported to have poor outcomes. However, previous studies are small and limited. The National Inpatient Sample database for the year 2020 was queried to identify all adult hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of STEMI, with and without concurrent COVID-19. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. A total of 159,890 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of STEMI were identified. Of these, 2210 (1.38%) had concurrent COVID-19. After propensity matching, STEMI patients with concurrent COVID-19 had a significantly higher mortality (17.8% vs 9.1%, OR 1.96, P< 0.001), lower likelihood to receive same-day percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (63.6% vs 70.6%, P = 0.019), with a trend towards lower overall PCI (74.9% vs 80.2%, P = 0.057) and significantly lower coronary artery bypass grafting) (3.0% vs 6.8%, P = 0.008) prior to discharge, compared with STEMI patients without COVID-19. The prevalence of cardiogenic shock, need for mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiac arrest, acute kidney injury (AKI), dialysis, major bleeding and stroke were not significantly different between the groups. COVID-19-positive STEMI patients who received same-day PCI had significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.85, P = 0.017). STEMI patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection had a significantly higher (almost 2 times) in-hospital mortality, and lower likelihood of receiving same-day PCI, overall (any-day) PCI, and CABG during their admission, compared with STEMI patients without COVID-19.

COVID-19, Heart Failure Hospitalizations, and Outcomes: A Nationwide Analysis.

Heart Failure (HF) patients are at a higher risk of adverse events associated with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Large population-based reports of the impact of COVID-19 on patients hospitalized with HF are limited. The National Inpatient Sample database was queried for HF admissions during 2020 in the United States (US), with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on ICD-10-CM U07. Propensity score matching was used to match patients across age, race, sex, and comorbidities. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of mortality. A weighted total of 1,110,085 hospitalizations for HF were identified of which 7,905 patients (0.71%) had a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19. After propensity matching, HF patients with COVID-19 had higher rate of in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs 3.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.33 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.69, 3.21]; P< 0.001), cardiac arrest (2.9% vs 1.1%, OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.24,3.93]; P<0.001), and pulmonary embolism (1.0% vs 0.4%; OR 2.68 [95% CI: 1.05, 6.90]; P = 0.0329). During hospitalizations for HF, COVID-19 was also found to be an independent predictor of mortality. Further, increasing age, arrythmias, and chronic kidney disease were independent predictors of mortality in HF patients with COVID-19. COVID-19 is associated with increased in-hospital mortality, longer hospital stays, higher cost of hospitalization and increased risk of adverse outcomes in patients admitted with HF.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients hospitalized with stress cardiomyopathy: A nationwide analysis.

Stress cardiomyopathy was noted to occur at a higher incidence during coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This database analysis has been done to compare the in-hospital outcomes in patients with stress cardiomyopathy and concurrent COVID-19 infection with those without COVID-19 infection. The National Inpatient Sample database for the year 2020 was queried to identify all admissions diagnosed with stress cardiomyopathy. These patients were then stratified based on whether they had concomitant COVID-19 infection or not. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to identify predictors of mortality. We identified 41,290 hospitalizations for stress cardiomyopathy, including 1665 patients with concurrent diagnosis of COVID-19. The female preponderance was significantly lower in patients with stress cardiomyopathy and COVID-19. Patients with concomitant COVID-19 were more likely to be African American, diabetic and have chronic kidney disease. After propensity matching, the incidence of complications, including acute kidney injury (AKI), AKI requiring dialysis, coagulopathy, sepsis, cardiogenic shock, cases with prolonged intubation of >24 h, requirement of vasopressor and inpatient mortality, were noted to be significantly higher in patients with COVID-19. Concomitant COVID-19 infection was independently associated with worse outcomes and increased mortality in patients hospitalized with stress cardiomyopathy.

Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, March to October 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre-COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames. RESULTS: The adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 time frame.

Cardiac Rehabilitation and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Persistent Declines in CR Participation and Access Among US Medicare Beneficiaries.

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown. Methods: Among eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100,000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between two periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, prior to declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available). Results: In period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean ± SD) 895 ± 84 CR sessions per 100,000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100,000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021, but remained lower than pre-pandemic levels (Period 2: 698 ± 29 CR sessions per month per 100,000 beneficiaries, p=.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the two periods. Compared with 2,618 ± 5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2,464 ± 7 in period 2 (p<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Heart failure quality of care and in-hospital outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.

AIMS: To assess heart failure (HF) in-hospital quality of care and outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF) <40% in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines©-HF (GWTG-HF) registry during the COVID-19 pandemic (3/1/2020-4/1/2021) and pre-pandemic (2/1/2019-2/29/2020) periods were included. Adherence to HF process of care measures, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were compared in pre-pandemic vs. pandemic periods and in patients with vs. without COVID-19. Overall, 42 004 pre-pandemic and 37 027 pandemic period patients (median age 68, 33% women, 58% White) were included without observed differences across clinical characteristics, comorbidities, vital signs, or EF. Utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge was comparable across both periods, with rates of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement or prescription lower during the pandemic (vs. pre-pandemic period). In-hospital mortality (3.0% vs. 2.5%, p <0.0001) and LOS (mean 5.7 vs. 5.4 days, p <0.0004) were higher during the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic. The highest in-hospital mortality during the pandemic was observed among patients hospitalized in the Northeast region (3.4%). Among patients concurrently diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 549; 1.5%), adherence to ICD placement or prescription, prescription of aldosterone antagonist or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor at discharge were lower, and in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs. 3.0%, p <0.0001) and LOS (mean 7.7 vs. 5.7 days, p <0.0001) were higher than those without COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Among GWTG-HF participating hospitals, patients hospitalized for HF with reduced EF during the pandemic received similar care quality but experienced higher in-hospital mortality than the pre-pandemic period.

Treatment and Outcomes of Patients With Ischemic Stroke During COVID-19: An Analysis From Get With The Guidelines-Stroke.

[Figure: see text].

Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From Get With The Guidelines-Stroke.

[Figure: see text].

Gout Pharmacotherapy in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Review of Utility and Outcomes.

Hyperuricemia and gout have been linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease, stroke, hypertension, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, possibly through a proinflammatory milieu. However, not all the drugs used in gout treatment improve CV outcomes; colchicine has shown improved CV outcomes in patients with recent myocardial infarction and stable coronary artery disease independent of lipid-lowering effects. There is resurging interest in colchicine following publication of the COLCOT, LoDoCo, LoDoCo2, LoDoCo-MI trials, and COLCORONA trial which will shed light on its utility in COVID-19. Our aim is to review the CV use of colchicine beyond pericardial diseases, as well as CV outcomes of the available gout therapies, including allopurinol and febuxostat. The CARES trial and its surrounding controversies, which lead to the US FDA 'black box' warning on febuxostat, in addition to the recent FAST trial which contradicts this and finds febuxostat to be non-inferior, are discussed in this paper.

Cardiovascular implications of COVID-19 versus influenza infection: a review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the overlapping clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza, parallels are often drawn between the two diseases. Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are at a higher risk for severe manifestations of both illnesses. Considering the high transmission rate of COVID-19 and with the seasonal influenza approaching in late 2020, the dual epidemics of COVID-19 and influenza pose serious cardiovascular implications. This review highlights the similarities and differences between influenza and COVID-19 and the potential risks associated with coincident pandemics. MAIN BODY: COVID-19 has a higher mortality compared to influenza with case fatality rate almost 15 times more than that of influenza. Additionally, a significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes has been noted in patients with CVD, with ~ 15 to 70% of COVID-19 related deaths having an underlying CVD. The critical care need have ranged from 5 to 79% of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, a proportion substantially higher than with influenza. Similarly, the frequency of vascular thrombosis including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism is markedly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with influenza in which vascular complications are rarely seen. Unexpectedly, while peak influenza season is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalizations, a decrease of ~ 50% in cardiovascular hospitalizations has been observed since the first diagnosed case of COVID-19, owing in part to deferred care. CONCLUSION: In the coming months, increasing efforts towards evaluating new interventions will be vital to curb COVID-19, especially as peak influenza season approaches. Currently, not enough data exist regarding co-infection of COVID-19 with influenza or how it would progress clinically, though it may cause a significant burden on an already struggling health care system. Until an effective COVID-19 vaccination is available, high coverage of influenza vaccination should be of utmost priority.

Cardiovascular Disease in Hospitalized Patients With a Diagnosis of Coronavirus From the Pre-COVID-19 Era in United States: National Analysis From 2016-2017.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden in hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of coronavirus from the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 era in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified hospitalized adults with a diagnosis of coronavirus in a large US administrative database, the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample, from January 1, 2016, to December 3, 2017, to study patient demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, and outcomes (in-hospital mortality and health care resource utilization) based on the presence or absence of CVD. RESULTS: A total of 21,300 hospitalized adults with a diagnosis of coronavirus in 2016 and 2017 from all across the United States were included in the final analysis; the mean age was 63.6 years, 11,033 (51.8%) were female, and 15,911 (74.7%) had public insurers. Among these hospitalized patients, 11,930 (56.0%) had a diagnosis of CVD. Compared with those without CVD, the patients with CVD were older (70.1 vs 55.4 years) and had higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (2.5 vs 1.6) and Elixhauser comorbidity index scores (4.3 vs 2.4) (all P<.001). After multivariable risk adjustment, patients with CVD had higher mortality than those without CVD (5.3% [632 of 11,930] vs 1.5% [140 of 9370]; adjusted odds ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.2 to 3.4]; P=.008). The mean length of hospital stay (6.9 vs 6.1 days; P=.003), hospital charges ($78,377 vs $66,538; P=.002), and discharge to nursing home (24.6% [2945 of 11,930] vs 12.9% [1208 of 9370]; P<.001) were higher in those with CVD compared with the patients without CVD. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular disease was present in a notable proportion of hospitalized patients with coronavirus in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 era in United States and was associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality and health care resource utilization.