Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Gender and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals.

RATIONALE: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID research. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals, and gender-based disparities in these rates. METHODS: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding-author gender (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between 1/1/18-12/31/20. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author gender with acceptance of original research manuscripts. RESULTS: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women comprised 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior-authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19-submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author gender (first-author: adjustedOR [aOR]0.46 [95%CI0.36-0.59]; senior-author: aOR0.46 [95%CI0.37-0.57]). Female senior-authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID research manuscripts (crude rates: 14.4% [male] vs 13.2% [female]; aOR0.84, 95%CI0.71-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting gender disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

The clinical effectiveness of REGEN-COV in SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron versus Delta variants.

BACKGROUND: In vitro studies suggesting that REGEN-COV (casirivimab plus imdevimab monoclonal antibodies) had poor efficacy against Omicron-variant SARS-CoV-2 infection led to amendment of REGEN-COV's Emergency Use Authorization to recommend use only in regions without high Omicron prevalence. REGEN-COV's relative clinical effectiveness for Omicron is unknown. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction at the University of Miami Health System from July 19 -November 21, 2021 (Delta period) and December 6, 2021 -January 7, 2022 (Omicron period). Subjects were stratified be REGEN-COV receipt within 72h of test positivity and by time period of infection. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to assess the differential association of REGEN-COV receipt with hospitalization within 30 days (primary outcome) and ED presentation; all models included three exposure terms (REGEN-COV receipt, Omicron vs Delta period, interaction of REGEN-COV with time period) and potential confounders (vaccination status, vaccine boosting, cancer diagnosis). Our cohort consisted of 2,083 adults in the Delta period (213 [10.2%] received REGEN-COV) and 4,201 in the Omicron period (156 [3.7%] received REGEN-COV). Hospitalization was less common during the Omicron period than during Delta (0.9% vs 1.7%, p = 0.78) and more common for patients receiving REGEN-COV than not (5.7% vs 0.9%, p<0.001). After adjustment, we found no differential association of REGEN-COV use during Omicron vs Delta with hospitalization within 30d (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for the interaction term: 2.31 [0.76-6.92], p = 0.13). Similarly, we found no differential association for hospitalization within 15d (2.45 [0.63-9.59], p = 0.20) or emergency department presentation within 30d (1.43 [0.57-3.51], p = 0.40) or within 15d (1.79 [0.65-4.82], p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study's power to detect a difference, we identified no differential effectiveness of REGEN-COV in the context of Omicron vs Delta SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Inhaled Nitric Oxide vs Epoprostenol During Acute Respiratory Failure: An Observational Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: The inhaled vasodilators nitric oxide and epoprostenol may be initiated to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); however, practice patterns and head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness are unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the practice patterns and comparative effectiveness for inhaled nitric oxide and epoprostenol in severe ARF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a large US database (Premier Healthcare Database), we identified adult patients with ARF or ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and started on inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, or both. Leveraging large hospital variation in the choice of initial inhaled vasodilator, we compared the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide with that of epoprostenol by limiting analysis to patients admitted to hospitals that exclusively used either inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol. The primary outcome of successful extubation was modeled using multivariate Fine-Grey competing risk (death or hospice discharge) time-to-event models. RESULTS: Among 11,200 patients (303 hospitals), 6,366 patients (56.8%) received inhaled nitric oxide first, 4,720 patients (42.1%) received inhaled epoprostenol first, and 114 patients (1.0%) received both therapies on the same day. One hundred four hospitals (34.3%; 1,666 patients) exclusively used nitric oxide and 118 hospitals (38.9%; 1,812 patients) exclusively used epoprostenol. No differences were found in the likelihood of successful extubation between patients admitted to nitric oxide-only hospitals vs those admitted to epoprostenol-only hospitals (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). Also no differences were found in total hospital costs or death. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Large variation exists in the use of initial inhaled vasodilator for respiratory failure across US hospitals. Comparative effectiveness analyses identified no differences in outcomes based on inhaled vasodilator type.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing Covid-19 Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Association of Women Leaders with Women Program Director and Trainee Representation Across US Academic Internal Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented within internal medicine (IM). Whether women leaders attract women trainees is not well explored. OBJECTIVE: To characterize leader and trainee gender across US academic IM and to investigate the association of leader gender with trainee gender. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders (chairs, chiefs, program directors (PDs)) in 2018 and trainees (residents, fellows) in 2012-2016 at medical school-affiliated IM and seven IM fellowship programs. EXPOSURE: Leadership (chair/chief and program director; and, for resident analyses, fellow) gender. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome was percent women trainees (IM residents and, separately, subspecialty fellows). We used standard statistics to describe leadership and trainee gender. We created separate multivariable linear regressions to evaluate associations of leader gender and percent women fellows with percent women IM residents. We then created separate multivariable multilevel models (site as a random effect) to evaluate associations of leader gender with percent women subspecialty fellows. KEY RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 940 programs. Women were 13.4% of IM chairs and <25% of chiefs in each fellowship subspecialty (cardiology: 2.6%; gastroenterology: 6.6%; pulmonary and critical care: 10.7%; nephrology: 14.4%; endocrinology: 20.6%; hematology-oncology: 23.2%; infectious diseases: 24.3%). IM PDs were 39.7% women; fellowship PDs ranged from nearly 25% (cardiology and gastroenterology) to nearly 50% (endocrinology and infectious disease) women. Having more women fellows (but not chairs or PDs) was associated with having more women residents (0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5%) increase per 1% fellow increase, p<0.001); this association remained after adjustment (0.3% (0.1%, 0.4%), p=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, having a woman PD (increase of 7.7% (4.7%, 10.6%), p<0.001) or chief (increase of 8.9% (4.6%, 13.1%), p<0.001) was associated with an increase in women fellows; after adjustment, these associations were lost. CONCLUSIONS: Women held a minority of leadership positions in academic IM. Having women leaders was not independently associated with having more women trainees.

Real world SARS-COV-2 vaccine effectiveness in a Miami academic institution.

BACKGROUND: To assess the effectiveness of messenger RNA vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in preventing emergency department (ED) presentations for acute respiratory illness. BASIC PROCEDURES: We conducted a retrospective study assessing adult presentations (age ≥ 18) to the University of Miami Hospital's ED from January 1st through August 25th, 2021, with a SARS-COV-2 PCR test and acute respiratory infection symptoms. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using a test-negative design. Both univariable and multivariable (adjusted for age, gender, race, insurance status, imputed body mass index [BMI], vaccine type, week of presentation) regression analyses were conducted for the full cohort and subgroups. MAIN FINDINGS: The cohort consisted of 13,203 ED presentations-3134 (23.7%) fully vaccinated and SARS-COV-2 negative, 108 (0.8%) fully vaccinated and SARS-COV-2 positive, 8817 (66.8%) unvaccinated and SARS-COV-2 negative, and 1144 (8.7%) unvaccinated and SARS-COV-2 positive. Unadjusted vaccination effectiveness was 73.4% (95% confidence interval: 67.5%,78.3%) and, after adjustment, 73.8% (66.2%,79.7%). The Moderna vaccine's effectiveness was numerically higher (unadjusted: 78.2% [68.8%, 84.7%]; adjusted: 78.0% [68.1%, 84.9%]) than the Pfizer vaccine's (unadjusted: 70.8% [62.9%, 76.9%]; adjusted: 73.9% [66.3%,79.8%]). We found a significant difference in adjusted vaccine effectiveness across categories was BMI (p < 0.001)-BMI <25: 66.3% (45.3%,79.2%); BMI 25-29: 71.3% (56.1%, 81.2%); BMI 30-34: 84.5% (71.7%, 91.5%); and BMI ≥35: 72.7% (50.5%, 84.9%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated excellent real-world effectiveness of mRNA vaccines in preventing ED presentation for SARS-COV-2 in a diverse U.S. COHORT: Notably, vaccine effectiveness improved with increasing BMI (until class 2 obesity).

Effectiveness of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccines for Preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Association of care by a non-medical intensive care unit provider team with outcomes of medically critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of boarding of critically ill medical patients on non-medical intensive care unit (ICU) provider teams with outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ICUs in a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients with medical critical illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared outcomes for critically ill medical patients admitted to a non-medical specialty ICU team (April 1 - August 30, 2020) with those admitted to the medical ICU team (January 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020). The primary outcome was hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital disposition for survivors. Our cohort consisted of 1241 patients admitted to the medical ICU team and 230 admitted to non-medical ICU teams. Unadjusted hospital mortality (medical ICU, 38.8% vs non-medical ICU, 42.2%, p = 0.33) and hospital LOS (7.4 vs 7.4 days, p = 0.96) were similar between teams. Among survivors, more non-medical ICU team patients were discharged home (72.6% vs 82.0%, p = 0.024). After multivariable adjustment, we found no difference in mortality, LOS, or home discharge between teams. However, among hospital survivors, admission to a non-medical ICU team was associated with a longer LOS (regression coefficient [95% CI] for log-transformed hospital LOS: 0.23 [0.05,0.40], p = 0.022). Certain subgroups-patients aged 50-64 years (odds-ratio [95% CI]: 4.22 [1.84,9.65], p = 0.001), with ≤10 comorbidities (0-5: 2.78 (1.11,6.95], p = 0.029; 6-10: 6.61 [1.38,31.71], p = 0.018), without acute respiratory failure (1.97 [1.20,3.23], p = 0.008)-had higher mortality when admitted to non-medical ICU teams. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between admission to non-medical ICU team and mortality for medically critically ill patients. However, survivors experienced longer hospital LOS when admitted to non-medical ICU teams. Middle-aged patients, those with low comorbidity burden, and those without respiratory failure had higher mortality when admitted to non-medical ICU teams.

Association of Surge Conditions with Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether surge conditions were associated with increased mortality. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. SETTING: U.S. ICUs participating in STOP-COVID. PATIENTS: Consecutive adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating ICUs between March 4 and July 1, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. To assess the association between admission to an ICU during a surge period and mortality, we used two different strategies: (1) an inverse probability weighted difference-in-differences model limited to appropriately matched surge and non-surge patients and (2) a meta-regression of 50 multivariable difference-in-differences models (each based on sets of randomly matched surge- and non-surge hospitals). In the first analysis, we considered a single surge period for the cohort (March 23 - May 6). In the second, each surge hospital had its own surge period (which was compared to the same time periods in matched non-surge hospitals).Our cohort consisted of 4342 ICU patients (average age 60.8 [sd 14.8], 63.5% men) in 53 U.S. hospitals. Of these, 13 hospitals encountered surge conditions. In analysis 1, the increase in mortality seen during surge was not statistically significant (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.30 [0.47-3.58], p = .6). In analysis 2, surge was associated with an increased odds of death (odds ratio 1.39 [95% CI, 1.34-1.43], p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Admission to an ICU with COVID-19 in a hospital that is experiencing surge conditions may be associated with an increased odds of death. Given the high incidence of COVID-19, such increases would translate into substantial excess mortality.

Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score across Patients with and without COVID-19 Infection.

Rationale: Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores are commonly used in crisis standards of care policies to assist in resource allocation. The relative predictive value of SOFA by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection status and among racial and ethnic subgroups within patients infected with COVID-19 is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and calibration of SOFA in predicting hospital mortality by COVID-19 infection status and across racial and ethnic subgroups. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult admissions to the University of Miami Hospital and Clinics inpatient wards (July 1, 2020-April 1, 2021). We primarily considered maximum SOFA within 48 hours of hospitalization. We assessed accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and created calibration belts. Considered subgroups were defined by COVID-19 infection status (by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction testing) and prevalent racial and ethnic minorities. Comparisons across subgroups were made with DeLong testing for discriminative accuracy and visualization of calibration belts. Results: Our primary cohort consisted of 20,045 hospitalizations, of which 1,894 (9.5%) were COVID-19 positive. SOFA was similarly accurate for COVID-19-positive (AUROC, 0.835) and COVID-19-negative (AUROC, 0.810; P = 0.15) admissions but was slightly better calibrated in patients who were positive for COVID-19. For those with critical illness, maximum SOFA score accuracy at critical illness onset also did not differ by COVID-19 status (AUROC, COVID-19 positive vs. negative: intensive care unit admissions, 0.751 vs. 0.775; P = 0.46; mechanically ventilated, 0.713 vs. 0.792, P = 0.13), and calibration was again better for patients positive for COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, SOFA accuracy was similar between the non-Hispanic White population (AUROC, 0.894) and racial and ethnic minorities (Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.824 [P vs. non-Hispanic White = 0.05]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.800 [P = 0.12]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.948 [P = 0.31]). This similar accuracy was also found for those without COVID-19 (non-Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.829; Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.811 [P = 0.37]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.828 [P = 0.97]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.867 [P = 0.46]). SOFA was well calibrated for all racial and ethnic groups with COVID-19 but estimated mortality more variably and performed less well across races and ethnicities without COVID-19. Conclusions: SOFA accuracy does not differ by COVID-19 status and is similar among racial and ethnic groups both with and without COVID-19. Calibration is better for COVID-19-infected patients and, among those without COVID-19, varies by race and ethnicity.

Bloodstream Infection Risk, Incidence, and Deaths for Hospitalized Patients during Coronavirus Disease Pandemic.

Hospital-acquired infections are emerging major concurrent conditions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We conducted a retrospective review of hospitalizations during March‒October 2020 of adults tested by reverse transcription PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We evaluated associations of COVID-19 diagnosis with risk for laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections (LCBIs, primary outcome), time to LCBI, and risk for death by using logistic and competing risks regression with adjustment for relevant covariates. A total of 10,848 patients were included in the analysis: 918 (8.5%) were given a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 232 (2.1%) had LCBIs during their hospitalization. Of these patients, 58 (25%) were classified as having central line‒associated bloodstream infections. After adjusting for covariates, COVID-19‒positive status was associated with higher risk for LCBI and death. Reinforcement of infection control practices should be implemented in COVID-19 wards, and review of superiority and inferiority ranking methods by National Healthcare Safety Network criteria might be needed.

Candida auris Invasive Infections during a COVID-19 Case Surge.

Clinical cases of C. auris noted during a COVID-19 surge led to an epidemiological, clinical, and genomic investigation. Evaluation identified a close genetic relationship but inconclusive epidemiologic link between all cases. Prolonged hospitalization due to critical illness from COVID-19 and use of antimicrobials may have contributed to clinical infections.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Association of Race and Ethnicity with COVID-19 Test Positivity and Hospitalization Is Mediated by Socioeconomic Factors.

Rationale: Black race and Hispanic ethnicity are associated with increased risks for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection and severity. It is purported that socioeconomic factors may drive this association, but data supporting this assertion are sparse. Objectives: To evaluate whether socioeconomic factors mediate the association of race/ethnicity with COVID-19 incidence and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults tested for (cohort 1) or hospitalized with (cohort 2) COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and July 23, 2020, at the University of Miami Hospital and Clinics. Our primary exposure was race/ethnicity. We considered socioeconomic factors as potential mediators of our exposure's association with outcomes. We used standard statistics to describe our cohorts and multivariable regression modeling to identify associations of race/ethnicity with our primary outcomes, one for each cohort, of test positivity (cohort 1) and hospital mortality (cohort 2). We performed a mediation analysis to see whether household income, population density, and household size mediated the association of race/ethnicity with outcomes. Results: Our cohorts included 15,473 patients tested (29.0% non-Hispanic White, 48.1% Hispanic White, 15.0% non-Hispanic Black, 1.7% Hispanic Black, and 1.6% other) and 295 patients hospitalized (9.2% non-Hispanic White, 56.9% Hispanic White, 21.4% non-Hispanic Black, 2.4% Hispanic Black, and 10.2% other). Among those tested, 1,256 patients (8.1%) tested positive, and, of the hospitalized patients, 47 (15.9%) died. After adjustment for demographics, race/ethnicity was associated with test positivity-odds-ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) versus non-Hispanic White for Non-Hispanic Black: 3.21 (2.60-3.96), Hispanic White: 2.72 (2.28-3.26), and Hispanic Black: 3.55 (2.33-5.28). Population density mediated this association (percentage mediated, 17%; 95% CI, 11-31%), as did median income (27%; 95% CI, 18-52%) and household size (20%; 95% CI, 12-45%). There was no association between race/ethnicity and mortality, although this analysis was underpowered. Conclusions: Black race and Hispanic ethnicity are associated with an increased odds of COVID-19 positivity. This association is substantially mediated by socioeconomic factors.

Factors Associated With Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the US.

Importance: The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. Objectives: To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. Exposures: Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. Results: A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2-4 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30-5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46-4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.