The Impact of Temporary Housing Assistance Expenditures on Subcategories of Health Care Cost for U.S. Veterans Facing Housing Instability.

We sought to estimate the impact of temporary financial assistance (TFA) for housing-related expenses from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on costs for a variety of health care services. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Veterans who entered the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program between 10/2015 and 9/2018. We assessed the effect of TFA on health care costs using a multivariable difference-in-difference approach. Outcomes were direct medical costs of health care encounters (i.e., emergency department, outpatient mental health, inpatient mental health, outpatient substance use disorder treatment, and residential behavioral health) in the VA system. Temporary financial assistance was associated with a decrease in ED (-$11, p<.003), outpatient mental health (-$28, p<.001), outpatient substance use disorder treatment (-$25, p<.001), inpatient mental health (-$258, p<.001), and residential behavioral health (-$181, p<.001) costs per quarter for Veterans in the rapid re-housing component of SSVF. These results can inform policy debates regarding proper solutions to housing instability.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME).

BACKGROUND: The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered. METHODS: The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments. RESULTS: Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee. CONCLUSIONS: Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

Circadian Timing, Information processing and Metabolism (TIME) study: protocol of a longitudinal study of sleep duration, circadian alignment and cardiometabolic health among overweight adults.

BACKGROUND: Both short sleep duration and circadian rhythm misalignment are risk factors for metabolic dysfunction, but the underlying mechanisms are unknown. The goal of this study is to examine how sleep duration and circadian alignment predict changes in cardiometabolic risk factors over a 12-month period, and test cognitive function and hedonic eating tendencies as potential mechanisms. METHODS: We will recruit a sample of 120 working aged adults with BMI 25-35 kg/m2 (overweight to class I obesity). The protocol includes 5 visits over a 12-month period. Study visits include wrist actigraphy to measure sleep behaviors, 24-h diet recalls, dim light melatonin collection, a computerized neurobehavioral assessment, eating in the absence of hunger task, and frequently sampled IV glucose tolerance test. DISCUSSION: The results of the TIME study will advance the understanding of how both short sleep duration and circadian misalignment contribute to behavioral aspects of obesity and metabolic dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT04759755 , registered retrospectively February 13, 2021.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Hydroxychloroquine for Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Hospitalization in Early Outpatient COVID-19 Infection.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. At the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, we conducted a phase 2 prospective parallel group randomized placebo-controlled trial (NCT04342169) to determine whether hydroxychloroquine given early in disease reduces the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding. We enrolled nonhospitalized adults (≥18 years of age) with a recent positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (within 72 h of enrollment) and adult household contacts. Participants received either 400 mg hydroxychloroquine by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg by mouth twice daily on days 2 to 5 or oral placebo with the same schedule. We performed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) on oropharyngeal swabs on days 1 to 14 and 28 and monitored clinical symptomatology, rates of hospitalization, and viral acquisition by adult household contacts. We identified no overall differences in the duration of oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio of viral shedding time comparing hydroxychloroquine to placebo, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91, 1.62). Overall, 28-day hospitalization incidence was similar between treatments (4.6% hydroxychloroquine versus 2.7% placebo). No differences were seen in symptom duration, severity, or viral acquisition in household contacts between treatment groups. The study did not reach the prespecified enrollment target, which was likely influenced by a steep decline in COVID-19 incidence corresponding to the initial vaccine rollout in the spring of 2021. Oropharyngeal swabs were self-collected, which may introduce variability in these results. Placebo treatments were not identical to hydroxychloroquine treatments (capsules versus tablets) which may have led to inadvertent participant unblinding. In this group of community adults early in the COVID-19 pandemic, hydroxychloroquine did not significantly alter the natural history of early COVID-19 disease. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04342169). IMPORTANCE Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine received attention as a possible early treatment; however, quality prospective studies were lacking. We conducted a clinical trial to test the ability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19.

Association Between Unmet Nonmedication Needs After Hospital Discharge and Readmission or Death Among Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize early unmet nonmedication discharge needs (UDNs), classified as durable medical equipment (DME), home health services (HHS), and follow-up medical appointments (FUAs) and explore their association with 90-day readmission and mortality among survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF) who were discharged home. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Six academic medical centers across United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adult survivors of ARF who required an ICU stay and were discharged home from hospital. INTERVENTIONS: None. Exposure of interest was the proportion of UDN for the following categories: DME, HHS, and FUA ascertained within 7-28 days after hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred eligible patients were recruited between January 2019 and August 2020. One-hundred ninety-five patients were included in the analytic cohort: 118 were prescribed DME, 134 were prescribed HHS, and 189 needed at least one FUA according to discharge plans. 98.4% (192/195) had at least one identified nonmedication need at hospital discharge. Median (interquartile range) proportion of unmet needs across three categories were 0 (0-15%) for DME, 0 (0-50%) for HHS, and 0 (0-25%) for FUA, and overall was 0 (0-20%). Fifty-six patients (29%) had 90-day death or readmission. After adjusting for prespecified covariates, having greater than the median level of unmet needs was not associated with an increased risk of readmission or death within 90 days of discharge (risk ratio, 0.89; 0.51-1.57; p = 0.690). Age, hospital length of stay, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II severity of illness score, and Multidimensional Scale Perceived Social Support score were associated with UDN. CONCLUSIONS: UDN were common among survivors of ARF but not significantly associated a composite outcome of 90-day readmission or death. Our results highlight the substantial magnitude of UDN and identifies areas especially vulnerable to lapses in healthcare coordination.

Association between unmet medication needs after hospital discharge and readmission or death among acute respiratory failure survivors: the addressing post-intensive care syndrome (APICS-01) multicenter prospective cohort study

Introduction Survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF) commonly experience long-lasting physical, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments. Unmet medication needs occurring immediately after hospital discharge may have an important effect on subsequent recovery. Methods and analysis In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we enrolled ARF survivors who were discharged directly home from their acute care hospitalization. The primary exposure was unmet medication needs. The primary outcome was hospital readmission or death within 3 months after discharge. We performed a propensity score analysis, using inverse probability weighting for the primary exposure, to evaluate the exposure–outcome association, with an a priori sample size of 200 ARF survivors. Results We enrolled 200 ARF survivors, of whom 107 (53%) were female and 77 (39%) were people of color. Median (IQR) age was 55 (43–66) years, APACHE II score 20 (15–26) points, and hospital length of stay 14 (9–21) days. Of the 200 participants, 195 (98%) were in the analytic cohort. One hundred fourteen (57%) patients had at least one unmet medication need;the proportion of medication needs that were unmet was 6% (0–15%). Fifty-six (29%) patients were readmitted or died by 3 months;10 (5%) died within 3 months. Unmet needs were not associated (risk ratio 1.25;95% CI 0.75–2.1) with hospital readmission or death, although a higher proportion of unmet needs may have been associated with increased hospital readmission (risk ratio 1.7;95% CI 0.96–3.1) and decreased mortality (risk ratio 0.13;95% CI 0.02–0.99). Discussion Unmet medication needs are common among survivors of acute respiratory failure shortly after discharge home. The association of unmet medication needs with 3-month readmission and mortality is complex and requires additional investigation to inform clinical trials of interventions to reduce unmet medication needs. Study registration number: NCT03738774. The study was prospectively registered before enrollment of the first patient. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03848-3.

High variability in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within households and implications for control.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a high risk of transmission in close-contact indoor settings, which may include households. Prior studies have found a wide range of household secondary attack rates and may contain biases due to simplifying assumptions about transmission variability and test accuracy. METHODS: We compiled serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody test data and prior SARS-CoV-2 test reporting from members of 9,224 Utah households. We paired these data with a probabilistic model of household importation and transmission. We calculated a maximum likelihood estimate of the importation probability, mean and variability of household transmission probability, and sensitivity and specificity of test data. Given our household transmission estimates, we estimated the threshold of non-household transmission required for epidemic growth in the population. RESULTS: We estimated that individuals in our study households had a 0.41% (95% CI 0.32%- 0.51%) chance of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection outside their household. Our household secondary attack rate estimate was 36% (27%- 48%), substantially higher than the crude estimate of 16% unadjusted for imperfect serological test specificity and other factors. We found evidence for high variability in individual transmissibility, with higher probability of no transmissions or many transmissions compared to standard models. With household transmission at our estimates, the average number of non-household transmissions per case must be kept below 0.41 (0.33-0.52) to avoid continued growth of the pandemic in Utah. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that crude estimates of household secondary attack rate based on serology data without accounting for false positive tests may underestimate the true average transmissibility, even when test specificity is high. Our finding of potential high variability (overdispersion) in transmissibility of infected individuals is consistent with characterizing SARS-CoV-2 transmission being largely driven by superspreading from a minority of infected individuals. Mitigation efforts targeting large households and other locations where many people congregate indoors might curb continued spread of the virus.

Probability-Based Estimates of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroprevalence and Detection Fraction, Utah, USA.

We aimed to generate an unbiased estimate of the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in 4 urban counties in Utah, USA. We used a multistage sampling design to randomly select community-representative participants >12 years of age. During May 4-June 30, 2020, we collected serum samples and survey responses from 8,108 persons belonging to 5,125 households. We used a qualitative chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG in serum samples. We estimated the overall seroprevalence to be 0.8%. The estimated seroprevalence-to-case count ratio was 2.5, corresponding to a detection fraction of 40%. Only 0.2% of participants from whom we collected nasopharyngeal swab samples had SARS-CoV-2-positive reverse transcription PCR results. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence during the study was low, and prevalence of PCR-positive cases was even lower. The comparatively high SARS-CoV-2 detection rate (40%) demonstrates the effectiveness of Utah's testing strategy and public health response.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and COVID-19-related outcomes among US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may positively or negatively impact outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the association of ARB or ACEI use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in US Veterans with treated hypertension using an active comparator design, appropriate covariate adjustment, and negative control analyses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study of Veterans with treated hypertension in the Veterans Health Administration (01/19/2020-08/28/2020), we compared users of (A) ARB/ACEI vs. non-ARB/ACEI (excluding Veterans with compelling indications to reduce confounding by indication) and (B) ARB vs. ACEI among (1) SARS-CoV-2+ outpatients and (2) COVID-19 hospitalized inpatients. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or mortality (outpatients) and all-cause mortality (inpatients). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) using propensity score-weighted Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between exposure groups after weighting. Among outpatients, there were 5.0 and 6.0 primary outcomes per 100 person-months for ARB/ACEI (n = 2,482) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 2,487) users (HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99, median follow-up 87 days). Among outpatients who were ARB (n = 4,877) vs. ACEI (n = 8,704) users, there were 13.2 and 14.8 primary outcomes per 100 person-months (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.97, median follow-up 85 days). Among inpatients who were ARB/ACEI (n = 210) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 275) users, there were 3.4 and 2.0 all-cause deaths per 100 person months (HR 1.25, 95%CI 0.30-5.13, median follow-up 30 days). Among inpatients, ARB (n = 1,164) and ACEI (n = 2,014) users had 21.0 vs. 17.7 all-cause deaths, per 100 person-months (HR 1.13, 95%CI 0.93-1.38, median follow-up 30 days). CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis supports continued ARB or ACEI use for patients already using these medications before SARS-CoV-2 infection. The novel beneficial association observed among outpatients between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs on hospitalization or mortality should be confirmed with randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine vs. Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (HAHPS): Results of a Randomized, Active Comparator Trial.

RATIONALE: The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates. OBJECTIVE: Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective. RESULTS: We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.

Hydroxychloroquine versus Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 (HAHPS). Protocol for a Pragmatic, Open-Label, Active Comparator Trial

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal illness with no proven therapy beyond excellent supportive care. Treatments are urgently sought. Adaptations to traditional trial logistics and design to allow rapid implementation, evaluation of trials within a global trials context, flexible interim monitoring, and access outside traditional research hospitals (even in settings where formal placebos are unavailable) may be helpful. Thoughtful adaptations to traditional trial designs, especially within the global context of related studies, may also foster collaborative relationships among government, community, and the research enterprise. Here, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic, active comparator trial in as many as 300 patients comparing two current "off-label" treatments for COVID-19-hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin-in academic and nonacademic hospitals in Utah. We developed the trial in response to local pressures for widespread, indiscriminate off-label use of these medications. We used a hybrid Bayesian-frequentist design for interim monitoring to allow rapid, contextual assessment of the available evidence. We also developed an inference grid for interpreting the range of possible results from this trial within the context of parallel trials and prepared for a network meta-analysis of the resulting data. This trial was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04329832).