Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Insecurity in an Urban Emergency Department Patient Population.

INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity (FI) has been associated with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare expenditures. Many families experienced reduced access to food during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A 2019 study revealed that the pre-pandemic prevalence of FI at an urban, tertiary care hospital's emergency department (ED) was 35.3%. We sought to evaluate whether the prevalence of FI in the same ED patient population increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a single-center, observational, survey-based study. Surveys assessing for FI were administered to clinically stable patients presenting to the ED over 25 consecutive weekdays from November-December 2020. RESULTS: Of 777 eligible patients, 379 (48.8%) were enrolled; 158 (41.7%) screened positive for FI. During the pandemic, there was a 18.1% relative increase (or 6.4% absolute increase) in the prevalence of FI in this population (P=0.040; OR=1.309, 95% CI 1.012-1.693). The majority (52.9%) of food-insecure subjects reported reduced access to food due to the pandemic. The most common perceived barriers to access to food were reduced food availability at grocery stores (31%), social distancing guidelines (26.5%), and reduced income (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that nearly half of the clinically stable patients who presented to our urban ED during the pandemic experienced food insecurity. The prevalence of FI in our hospital's ED patient population increased by 6.4% during the pandemic. Emergency physicians should be aware of rising FI in their patient population so that they may better support patients who must choose between purchasing food and purchasing prescribed medications.

External Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Prognostic Tools.

Our objective was to externally validate 2 simple risk scores for mortality among a mostly inpatient population with COVID-19 in Canada (588 patients for COVID-NoLab and 479 patients for COVID-SimpleLab). The mortality rates in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for COVID-NoLab were 1.1%, 9.6%, and 21.2%, respectively. The mortality rates for COVID-SimpleLab were 0.0%, 9.8%, and 20.0%, respectively. These values were similar to those in the original derivation cohort. The 2 simple risk scores, now successfully externally validated, offer clinicians a reliable way to quickly identify low-risk inpatients who could potentially be managed as outpatients in the event of a bed shortage. Both are available online (https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/covid_nolab/ and https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/COVID-SimpleLab/).

Development and Validation of a Two-Step Predictive Risk Stratification Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 In-hospital Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Patients: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients. Measurements and Main Results: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79-0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score. Conclusions: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.

Development and Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Risk Scores for Prognosis in 6 US Health Systems.

PURPOSE: Develop and validate simple risk scores based on initial clinical data and no or minimal laboratory testing to predict mortality in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. METHODS: We gathered clinical and initial laboratory variables on consecutive inpatients with COVID-19 who had either died or been discharged alive at 6 US health centers. Logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model using no laboratory values (COVID-NoLab) and one adding tests available in many outpatient settings (COVID-SimpleLab). The models were converted to point scores and their accuracy evaluated in an internal validation group. RESULTS: We identified 1340 adult inpatients with complete data for nonlaboratory parameters and 741 with complete data for white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, c-reactive protein (CRP), and serum creatinine. The COVID-NoLab risk score includes age, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation and identified risk groups with 0.8%, 11.4%, and 40.4% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.803). The COVID-SimpleLab score includes age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, WBC, CRP, serum creatinine, and comorbid asthma and identified risk groups with 1.0%, 9.1%, and 29.3% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.833). CONCLUSIONS: Because they use simple, readily available predictors, developed risk scores have potential applicability in the outpatient setting but require prospective validation before use.