Thromboelastography Parameters do not Discriminate for Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic state; leading to multiple sequelae. We sought to detect whether thromboelastography (TEG) parameters would be able to detect thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter case-control study of the Collaborative Research to Understand the Sequelae of Harm in COVID (CRUSH COVID) registry of 8 tertiary care level hospitals in the United States (US). This registry contains adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 2020 and September 2020. RESULTS: A total of 277 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were analyzed to determine whether conventional coagulation TEG parameters were associated with venous thromboembolic (VTE) and thrombotic events during hospitalization. A clotting index (CI) >3 was present in 45.8% of the population, consistent with a hypercoagulable state. Eighty-three percent of the patients had clot lysis at 30 min (LY30) = 0, consistent with fibrinolysis shutdown, with a median of 0.1%. We did not find TEG parameters (LY30 area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65, P value = .32; alpha angle [α] AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.69, P value = .17; K time AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.46-0.69, P value = .67; maximum amplitude (MA) AUC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.64, P value = .47; reaction time [R time] AUC = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65, P value = .70) to be a good discriminator for VTE. We also did not find TEG parameters (LY30 AUC = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.60, P value = .84; R time AUC = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.48-0.67, P value .07; α AUC = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.51-0.68, P value = .02; K time AUC = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.70, P value = .07; MA AUC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57-0.74, P value < .01) to be a good discriminator for thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, TEG in COVID-19 hospitalized patients may indicate a hypercoagulable state, however, its use in detecting VTE or thrombotic events is limited in this population.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS: We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Effects of tuberculosis and/or HIV-1 infection on COVID-19 presentation and immune response in Africa.

Few studies from Africa have described the clinical impact of co-infections on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we investigate the presentation and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in an African setting of high HIV-1 and tuberculosis prevalence by an observational case cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients. A comparator group of non SARS-CoV-2 participants is included. The study includes 104 adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 29.8% are HIV-1 co-infected. Two or more co-morbidities are present in 57.7% of participants, including HIV-1 (30%) and active tuberculosis (14%). Amongst patients dually infected by tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2, clinical features can be typical of either SARS-CoV-2 or tuberculosis: lymphopenia is exacerbated, and some markers of inflammation (D-dimer and ferritin) are further elevated (p < 0.05). Amongst HIV-1 co-infected participants those with low CD4 percentage strata exhibit reduced total, but not neutralising, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8 T cell responses are present in 35.8% participants overall but undetectable in combined HIV-1 and tuberculosis. Death occurred in 30/104 (29%) of all COVID-19 patients and in 6/15 (40%) of patients with coincident SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis. This shows that in a high incidence setting, tuberculosis is a common co-morbidity in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is adversely affected by co-existent HIV-1 and tuberculosis.

Outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant outbreak among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer in Europe: results from the retrospective, multicentre, OnCovid registry study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Influenza Vaccination Uptake and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Early 2021 at the Start of the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout in Cape Town, South Africa.

Vaccination attitudes among healthcare workers (HCWs) predict their level of vaccination uptake and intention to recommend vaccinations to their patients. To our knowledge, no study has been conducted in South Africa to assess hesitancy toward influenza vaccines among HCWs. We adapted a questionnaire developed and validated by Betsch and colleagues and used it to conduct online and face-to-face interviews among HCWs at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess predictors of influenza vaccine hesitancy. Of 401 participants, 64.5% were women, 49.2% were nurses, and 12.5% were physicians. A total of 54.9% were willing to accept, 20.4% were undecided, and 24.7% intended to refuse influenza vaccination. Participants who were above 25 years of age and physicians were more likely to accept the vaccine. Key predictors of vaccine acceptance were confidence in the effectiveness, consideration of benefits and risks, and willingness to be vaccinated to protect others. Influenza vaccine hesitancy was highest in those who did not trust that influenza vaccines are safe. For future flu seasons, tailored education programs on the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines targeting younger HCWs, could be vital to improving vaccine uptake.

Association of Early Aspirin Use With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Moderate COVID-19.

Importance: Prior observational studies suggest that aspirin use may be associated with reduced mortality in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but aspirin's efficacy in patients with moderate COVID-19 is not well studied. Objective: To assess whether early aspirin use is associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 112 269 hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, enrolled from January 1, 2020, through September 10, 2021, at 64 health systems in the United States participating in the National Institute of Health's National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). Exposure: Aspirin use within the first day of hospitalization. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Odds of in-hospital mortality were calculated using marginal structural Cox and logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to reduce bias from confounding and balance characteristics between groups. Results: Among the 2 446 650 COVID-19-positive patients who were screened, 189 287 were hospitalized and 112 269 met study inclusion. For the full cohort, Median age was 63 years (IQR, 47-74 years); 16.1% of patients were African American, 3.8% were Asian, 52.7% were White, 5.0% were of other races and ethnicities, 22.4% were of unknown race and ethnicity. In-hospital mortality occurred in 10.9% of patients. After inverse probability treatment weighting, 28-day in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in those who received aspirin (10.2% vs 11.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001). The rate of pulmonary embolism, but not deep vein thrombosis, was also significantly lower in patients who received aspirin (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .004). Patients who received early aspirin did not have higher rates of gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.8% aspirin vs 0.7% no aspirin; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .72), cerebral hemorrhage (0.6% aspirin vs 0.4% no aspirin; OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92-1.88; P = .13), or blood transfusion (2.7% aspirin vs 2.3% no aspirin; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.32; P = .06). The composite of hemorrhagic complications did not occur more often in those receiving aspirin (3.7% aspirin vs 3.2% no aspirin; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .054). Subgroups who appeared to benefit the most included patients older than 60 years (61-80 years: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87; P < .001; >80 years: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; P < .001) and patients with comorbidities (1 comorbidity: 6.4% vs 9.2%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.83; P < .001; 2 comorbidities: 10.5% vs 12.8%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93; P = .003; 3 comorbidities: 13.8% vs 17.0%, OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001; >3 comorbidities: 17.0% vs 21.6%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US adults hospitalized with moderate COVID-19, early aspirin use was associated with lower odds of 28-day in-hospital mortality. A randomized clinical trial that includes diverse patients with moderate COVID-19 is warranted to adequately evaluate aspirin's efficacy in patients with high-risk conditions.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We assessed willingness to accept vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers(HCWs) at the start of South Africa's vaccination roll-out. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among HCWs in Cape Town in March-May 2021 and assessed predictors of vaccination intentions. RESULTS: We recruited 395 participants; 64% women, 49% nurses, and 13% physicians. Of these, 233(59.0%) would accept and 163 (41.0%) were vaccine hesitant i.e. would either refuse or were unsure whether they would accept COVID-19 vaccination. People who did not trust that COVID-19 vaccines are effective were the most hesitant (p = 0.038). Older participants and physicians were more likely to accept vaccination than younger participants (p < 0.01) and other HCWs (p = 0.042) respectively. Other predictors of vaccine acceptance were trust that vaccines are compatible with religion (p < 0.001), consideration of benefits and risks of vaccination (p < 0.001), willingness to be vaccinated to protect others (p < 0.001), and viewing vaccination as a collective action for COVID-19 control (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is high among HCWs in Cape Town. Reducing this would require trust-building interventions, including tailored education.

ZINC USE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED OUTCOMES IN COVID-19: RESULTS FROM THE CRUSH-COVID REGISTRY

B Introduction: b Previous work has shown correlations of zinc deficiency and poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients.i Little is known, however, about the use of zinc supplementation and its potential benefits in hospitalized COVID-19 positive individuals. B Conclusions: b Zinc use may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

A PANDEMIC WITHIN AN EPIDEMIC: EVALUATION OF COVID-19 IN THE OBESE POPULATION

B Conclusion: b This supports the growing body of evidence that obesity has the potential to serve as an independent predictor for outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Evidence has shown increased morbidity and mortality among obese COVID-19 patients. Patients were stratified into healthy weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25 - 29.9), obese (BMI 30 -39.9), and morbidly obese (BMI > 40) categories. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Whole blood-based measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells reveals asymptomatic infection and vaccine immunogenicity in healthy subjects and patients with solid-organ cancers.

Accurate assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immunity is critical in evaluating vaccine efficacy and devising public health policies. Whilst the exact nature of effective immunity remains incompletely defined, SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are a critical feature that will likely form a key correlate of protection against COVID-19. Here, we developed and optimized a high-throughput whole blood-based assay to determine the T-cell response associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or vaccination amongst 231 healthy donors and 68 cancer patients. Following overnight in vitro stimulation with SARS-CoV-2-specific peptides, blood plasma samples were analysed for TH 1-type cytokines. Highly significant differential IFN-γ+ /IL-2+ SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses were seen amongst previously infected COVID-19-positive healthy donors in comparison with unknown / naïve individuals (p < 0·0001). IFN-γ production was more effective at identifying asymptomatic donors, demonstrating higher sensitivity (96·0% vs. 83·3%) but lower specificity (84·4% vs. 92·5%) than measurement of IL-2. A single COVID-19 vaccine dose induced IFN-γ and/or IL-2 SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses in 116 of 128 (90·6%) healthy donors, reducing significantly to 27 of 56 (48·2%) when measured in cancer patients (p < 0·0001). A second dose was sufficient to boost T-cell responses in the majority (90·6%) of cancer patients, albeit IFN-γ+ responses were still significantly lower overall than those induced in healthy donors (p = 0·034). Three-month post-vaccination T-cell responses also declined at a faster rate in cancer patients. Overall, this cost-effective standardizable test ensures accurate and comparable assessments of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses amenable to widespread population immunity testing, and identifies individuals at greater need of booster vaccinations.

Specialist palliative and end-of-life care for patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a European perspective.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres. METHODS: From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT- not referred). RESULTS: Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p < 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control. CONCLUSION: SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population.

Systemic pro-inflammatory response identifies patients with cancer with adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection: the OnCovid Inflammatory Score.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study. METHODS: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets. RESULTS: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer.

Aspirin Use Is Associated With Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The importance of information, motivation, and behavioral skills (IMB): Healthcare provider perspectives on improving adherence to cervical cancer screening among at-risk women.

Objective: To understand the theoretical framework of how information, motivation, and behavioral skills (IMB) independently and collectively affect cervical cancer screening and testing adherence. Study design: Qualitative study. Methods: Data collected from three focus groups and seven individual interviews, with 33 healthcare providers, ranging from community health navigators, Ob-Gyn MD's, nurses, care coordinators, medical assistants, and outpatient managers, representing a grassroots community health agency, a large cancer center, and a public sector health clinic. We recruited providers over a five-month period in the summer to fall of 2019. Provider interviews and focus groups were structured with four to eleven participants per group and were audio-recorded. This study was rooted in grounded theory, analyzing data using the iterative process of Coding, Consensus, Co-occurrence, and Comparison to identify common themes. Results: Emerging qualitative findings include the relevance of information, the interaction between information and motivation, the role of behavioral skills, and the symbiotic relationship between information, motivation, and behavioral skills (IMB). Most notable is this interdependency between IMB components, with the core of this relationship being the critical link of coordinating adherence. Conclusion: This knowledge will help advance and expand IMB intervention components to improve time to cervical cancer screening and follow-up adherence among at-risk communities. Particularly given COVID-19 barriers, which disproportionately affect at-risk women, this study has practice implications that inform the development of cervical cancer screening practice interventions and strategies to improve adherence, while ensuring safety for both patients and providers.