Contingency management with stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use among individuals with HIV: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH), many are ambivalent about engaging in treatment and experience variable responses to treatment. We describe the rationale, aims, and study design for the Financial Incentives, Randomization, with Stepped Treatment (FIRST) Trial, a multi-site randomized controlled efficacy trial. METHODS: PWH in care recruited from clinics across the United States who reported unhealthy alcohol use, had a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) >20 ng/mL, and were not engaged in formal alcohol treatment were randomized to integrated contingency management with stepped care versus treatment as usual. The intervention involved two steps; Step 1: Contingency management (n = 5 sessions) with potential rewards based on 1) short-term abstinence; 2) longer-term abstinence; and 3) completion of healthy activities to promote progress in addressing alcohol consumption or conditions potentially impacted by alcohol; Step 2: Addiction physician management (n = 6 sessions) plus motivational enhancement therapy (n = 4 sessions). Participants' treatment was stepped up at week 12 if they lacked evidence of longer-term abstinence. Primary outcome was abstinence at week 24. Secondary outcomes included alcohol consumption (assessed by TLFB and PEth) and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index 2.0 scores; exploratory outcomes included progress in addressing medical conditions potentially impacted by alcohol. Protocol adaptations due to the COVID-19 pandemic are described. CONCLUSIONS: The FIRST Trial is anticipated to yield insights on the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrated contingency management with stepped care to address unhealthy alcohol use among PWH. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03089320.

Excess Mortality Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System Compared With the Overall US Population During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial increase in the rate of death in the United States. It is unclear whether those who had access to comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system had different death rates compared with the overall US population. Objective: To quantify and compare the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic between individuals who received comprehensive medical care through the VA health care system and those in the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared 10.9 million enrollees in the VA, including 6.8 million active users of VA health care (those with a visit in the last 2 years), with the general population of the US, with deaths occurring from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted from May 17, 2021, to March 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with previous years. Changes in all-cause death rates by quarter were stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Multilevel regression models were fit in a bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations. Results: There were 10.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system and 6.8 million active users. The demographic characteristics of the VA populations were predominantly male (>85% in the VA health care system vs 49% in the general US population), older (mean [SD], 61.0 [18.2] years in the VA health care system vs 39.0 [23.1] years in the US population), and had a larger proportion of patients who were White (73% in the VA health care system vs 61% in the US population) or Black (17% in the VA health care system vs 13% in the US population). Increases in death rates were apparent across all of the adult age groups (≥25 years) in both the VA populations and the general US population. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates compared with expected values was similar for VA enrollees (risk ratio [RR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.29]), VA active users (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), and the general US population (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22]). Because the prepandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a comparison of excess deaths between populations suggests that active users of the VA health system had similar relative increases in mortality compared with the general US population during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates

Background Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US). Objective We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US. Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no). Results Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532;55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99];AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95];AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78]. Conclusions Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination;all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution. Graphical Image, graphical

Analysis of Severe Illness After Postvaccination COVID-19 Breakthrough Among Adults With and Without HIV in the US.

Importance: Understanding the severity of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) breakthrough illness among people with HIV (PWH) can inform vaccine guidelines and risk-reduction recommendations. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of severe breakthrough illness among vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) who experience a breakthrough infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET-II) collaboration included adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who were receiving care and were fully vaccinated by June 30, 2021, along with PWoH matched according to date fully vaccinated, age group, race, ethnicity, and sex from 4 US integrated health systems and academic centers. Those with postvaccination COVID-19 breakthrough before December 31, 2021, were eligible. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness, defined as hospitalization within 28 days after a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis. Discrete time proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs of severe breakthrough illness within 28 days of breakthrough COVID-19 by HIV status adjusting for demographic variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, and clinical factors. The proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation or died was compared by HIV status. Results: Among 3649 patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (1241 PWH and 2408 PWoH), most were aged 55 years or older (2182 patients [59.8%]) and male (3244 patients [88.9%]). The cumulative incidence of severe illness in the first 28 days was low and comparable between PWoH and PWH (7.3% vs 6.7%; risk difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -2.58% to 1.23%). The risk of severe breakthrough illness was 59% higher in PWH with CD4 cell counts less than 350 cells/µL compared with PWoH (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.46; P = .049). In multivariable analyses among PWH, being female, older, having a cancer diagnosis, and lower CD4 cell count were associated with increased risk of severe breakthrough illness, whereas previous COVID-19 was associated with reduced risk. Among 249 hospitalized patients, 24 (9.6%) were mechanically ventilated and 20 (8.0%) died, with no difference by HIV status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness within 28 days of a breakthrough infection was low among vaccinated PWH and PWoH. PWH with moderate or severe immune suppression had a higher risk of severe breakthrough infection and should be included in groups prioritized for additional vaccine doses and risk-reduction strategies.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes in men with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes by antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens among men with HIV. DESIGN: We included men with HIV on ART in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who, between February 2020 and October 2021, were 18 years or older and had adequate virological control, CD4 + cell count, and HIV viral load measured in the previous 12 months, and no previous COVID-19 diagnosis or vaccination. METHODS: We compared the adjusted risks of documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by baseline ART regimen: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other. We fit pooled logistic regressions to estimate the 18-month risks standardized by demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 20 494 eligible individuals, the baseline characteristics were similar across regimens, except that TDF/FTC and TAF/FTC had lower prevalences of chronic kidney disease and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min. Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated 18-month risk ratio (95% confidence interval) of documented SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.65 (0.43, 0.89) for TDF/FTC, 1.00 (0.85, 1.18) for ABC/3TC, and 0.87 (0.70, 1.04) for others. The corresponding risk ratios for COVID-19 hospitalization were 0.43 (0.07, 0.87), 1.09 (0.79, 1.48), and 1.21 (0.88, 1.62). The risk of COVID-19 ICU admission was lowest for TDF/FTC, but the estimates were imprecise. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that, in men living with HIV, TDF/FTC may protect against COVID-19-related events. Randomized trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of TDF as prophylaxis for, and early treatment of, COVID-19 in the general population.

Dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients not on intensive respiratory support.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS. METHODS: We included patients admitted to US Veterans Affairs hospitals between 7 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 within 14 days after a positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71 years, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514 out of 9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472 out of 5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) only received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.47-2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC only (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC only in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing and Positivity Among Persons With and Without HIV in 6 US Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: It is not definitively known if persons with HIV (PWH) are more likely to be SARS-CoV-2 tested or test positive than persons without HIV (PWoH). We describe SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity in 6 large geographically and demographically diverse cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States. SETTING: The Corona Infectious Virus Epidemiology Team comprises 5 clinical cohorts within a health system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA; Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, Rockville, MD; University of North Carolina Health, Chapel Hill, NC; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; and Veterans Aging Cohort Study) and 1 interval cohort (Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study/Women's Interagency HIV Study Combined Cohort Study). METHODS: We calculated the proportion of patients SARS-CoV-2 tested and the test positivity proportion by HIV status from March 1 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The cohorts ranged in size from 1675 to 31,304 PWH and 1430 to 3,742,604 PWoH. The proportion of PWH who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (19.6%-40.5% across sites) was significantly higher than PWoH (14.8%-29.4%) in the clinical cohorts. However, among those tested, the proportion of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests was comparable by HIV status; the difference in proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positivity ranged from 4.7% lower to 1.4% higher. CONCLUSIONS: Although PWH had higher testing proportions compared with PWoH, we did not find evidence of increased positivity in 6 large, diverse populations across the United States. Ongoing monitoring of testing, positivity, and COVID-19-related outcomes in PWH are needed, given availability, response, and durability of COVID-19 vaccines; emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants; and latest therapeutic options.

Analysis of Postvaccination Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections Among Adults With HIV in the United States.

Importance: Recommendations for additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines for people with HIV (PWH) are restricted to those with advanced disease or unsuppressed HIV viral load. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk after vaccination among PWH is essential for informing vaccination guidelines. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET)-II (of the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [NA-ACCORD], which is part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS [IeDEA]), collaboration of 4 prospective, electronic health record-based cohorts from integrated health systems and academic health centers. Adult PWH who were fully vaccinated prior to June 30, 2021, were matched with PWoH on date of full vaccination, age, race and ethnicity, and sex and followed up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 breakthrough infections, defined as laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 diagnosis after a patient was fully vaccinated. Results: Among 113 994 patients (33 029 PWH and 80 965 PWoH), most were 55 years or older (80 017 [70%]) and male (104 967 [92%]); 47 098 (41%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 43 218 (38%) were non-Hispanic White. The rate of breakthrough infections was higher in PWH vs PWoH (55 [95% CI, 52-58] cases per 1000 person-years vs 43 [95% CI, 42-45] cases per 1000 person-years). Cumulative incidence of breakthroughs 9 months after full vaccination was low (3.8% [95% CI, 3.7%-3.9%]), albeit higher in PWH vs PWoH (4.4% vs 3.5%; log-rank P < .001; risk difference, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.2%]) and within each vaccine type. Breakthrough infection risk was 28% higher in PWH vs PWoH (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.19-1.37]). Among PWH, younger age (<45 y vs 45-54 y), history of COVID-19, and not receiving an additional dose (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58-0.88]) were associated with increased risk of breakthrough infections. There was no association of breakthrough with HIV viral load suppression, but high CD4 count (ie, ≥500 cells/mm3) was associated with fewer breakthroughs among PWH. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, COVID-19 vaccination, especially with an additional dose, was effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating through December 31, 2021. PWH had an increased risk of breakthrough infections compared with PWoH. Expansion of recommendations for additional vaccine doses to all PWH should be considered.

Geographic and temporal variation in racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 positivity between February 2020 and August 2021 in the United States.

The coronavirus pandemic has disproportionally impacted racial and ethnic minority communities in the United States. Patterns of these disparities may be changing over time as outbreaks occur in different communities. Utilizing electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), we estimated odds ratios, stratified by time period and region, for testing positive among 1,313,402 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 12, 2020 and August 16, 2021 at VA medical facilities. We adjusted for personal characteristics (sex, age, rural/urban residence, VA facility) and a wide range of clinical characteristics that have been evaluated in prior SARS-CoV-2 reports and could potentially explain racial/ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2. Our study found racial and ethnic disparities for testing positive were most pronounced at the beginning of the pandemic and decreased over time. A key finding was that the disparity among Hispanic individuals attenuated but remained elevated, while disparities among Asian individuals reversed by March 1, 2021. The variation in racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 positivity by time and region, independent of underlying health status and other demographic characteristics in a nationwide cohort, provides important insight for strategies to prevent further outbreaks.

COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.

Pharmacoepidemiology, Machine Learning, and COVID-19: An Intent-to-Treat Analysis of Hydroxychloroquine, With or Without Azithromycin, and COVID-19 Outcomes Among Hospitalized US Veterans.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as an early therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after in vitro studies indicated possible benefit. Previous in vivo observational studies have presented conflicting results, though recent randomized clinical trials have reported no benefit from HCQ among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We examined the effects of HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin in a hospitalized population of US veterans with COVID-19, using a propensity score-adjusted survival analysis with imputation of missing data. According to electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, 64,055 US Veterans were tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Of the 7,193 veterans who tested positive, 2,809 were hospitalized, and 657 individuals were prescribed HCQ within the first 48-hours of hospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19. There was no apparent benefit associated with HCQ receipt, alone or in combination with azithromycin, and there was an increased risk of intubation when HCQ was used in combination with azithromycin (hazard ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24). In conclusion, we assessed the effectiveness of HCQ with or without azithromycin in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, using a national sample of the US veteran population. Using rigorous study design and analytic methods to reduce confounding and bias, we found no evidence of a survival benefit from the administration of HCQ.

HIV care using differentiated service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cohort study in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

INTRODUCTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest provider of HIV care in the United States. Changes in healthcare delivery became necessary with the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared HIV healthcare delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to a prior similar calendar period. METHODS: We included 27,674 people with HIV (PWH) enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study prior to 1 March 2019, with ≥1 healthcare encounter from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2020 (2019) and/or 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 (2020). We counted monthly general medicine/infectious disease (GM/ID) clinic visits and HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) tests. We determined the percentage with ≥1 clinic visit (in-person vs. telephone/video [virtual]) and ≥1 VL test (detectable vs. suppressed) for 2019 and 2020. Using pharmacy records, we summarized antiretroviral (ARV) medication refill length (<90 vs. ≥90 days) and monthly ARV coverage. RESULTS: Most patients had ≥1 GM/ID visit in 2019 (96%) and 2020 (95%). For 2019, 27% of visits were virtual compared to 64% in 2020. In 2019, 82% had VL measured compared to 74% in 2020. Of those with VL measured, 92% and 91% had suppressed VL in 2019 and 2020. ARV refills for ≥90 days increased from 39% in 2019 to 51% in 2020. ARV coverage was similar for all months of 2019 and 2020 ranging from 76% to 80% except for March 2019 (72%). Women were less likely than men to be on ARVs or to have a VL test in both years. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VA increased the use of virtual visits and longer ARV refills, while maintaining a high percentage of patients with suppressed VL among those with VL measured. Despite decreased in-person services during the pandemic, access to ARVs was not disrupted. More follow-up time is needed to determine whether overall health was impacted by the use of differentiated service delivery and to evaluate whether a long-term shift to increased virtual healthcare could be beneficial, particularly for PWH in rural areas or with transportation barriers. Programmes to increase ARV use and VL testing for women are needed.

Accuracy of the Veterans Health Administration COVID-19 (VACO) Index for predicting short-term mortality among 1307 US academic medical centre inpatients and 427 224 US Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration COVID-19 (VACO) Index predicts 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 using age, sex and pre-existing comorbidity diagnoses. The VACO Index was initially developed and validated in a nationwide cohort of US veterans-we now assess its accuracy in an academic medical centre and a nationwide US Medicare cohort. METHODS: With measures and weights previously derived and validated in US national Veterans Health Administration (VA) inpatients and outpatients (n=13 323), we evaluated the accuracy of the VACO Index for estimating 30-day all-cause mortality using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots of predicted versus observed mortality in inpatients at a single US academic medical centre (n=1307) and in Medicare inpatients and outpatients aged 65+ (n=427 224). RESULTS: 30-day mortality varied by data source: VA 8.5%, academic medical centre 17.5%, Medicare 16.0%. The VACO Index demonstrated similar discrimination in VA (AUC=0.82) and academic medical centre inpatient population (AUC=0.80), and when restricted to patients aged 65+ in VA (AUC=0.69) and Medicare inpatient and outpatient data (AUC=0.67). The Index modestly overestimated risk in VA and Medicare data and underestimated risk in Yale New Haven Hospital data. CONCLUSIONS: The VACO Index estimates risk of short-term mortality across a wide variety of patients with COVID-19 using data available prior to or at the time of diagnosis. The VACO Index could help inform primary and booster vaccination prioritisation, and indicate who among outpatients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 should receive greater clinical attention or scarce treatments.

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion. RESULTS: Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.

Development and validation of a 30-day mortality index based on pre-existing medical administrative data from 13,323 COVID-19 patients: The Veterans Health Administration COVID-19 (VACO) Index.

BACKGROUND: Available COVID-19 mortality indices are limited to acute inpatient data. Using nationwide medical administrative data available prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection from the US Veterans Health Administration (VA), we developed the VA COVID-19 (VACO) 30-day mortality index and validated the index in two independent, prospective samples. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed SARS-CoV-2 testing results within the VA between February 8 and August 18, 2020. The sample was split into a development cohort (test positive between March 2 and April 15, 2020), an early validation cohort (test positive between April 16 and May 18, 2020), and a late validation cohort (test positive between May 19 and July 19, 2020). Our logistic regression model in the development cohort considered demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), and pre-existing medical conditions and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) derived from ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Weights were fixed to create the VACO Index that was then validated by comparing area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) in the early and late validation cohorts and among important validation cohort subgroups defined by sex, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. We also evaluated calibration curves and the range of predictions generated within age categories. 13,323 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median age: 63 years; 91% male; 42% non-Hispanic Black). We observed 480/3,681 (13%) deaths in development, 253/2,151 (12%) deaths in the early validation cohort, and 403/7,491 (5%) deaths in the late validation cohort. Age, multimorbidity described with CCI, and a history of myocardial infarction or peripheral vascular disease were independently associated with mortality-no other individual comorbid diagnosis provided additional information. The VACO Index discriminated mortality in development (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), and in early (AUC = 0.81 95% CI: 0.78-0.83) and late (AUC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86) validation. The VACO Index allows personalized estimates of 30-day mortality after COVID-19 infection. For example, among those aged 60-64 years, overall mortality was estimated at 9% (95% CI: 6-11%). The Index further discriminated risk in this age stratum from 4% (95% CI: 3-7%) to 21% (95% CI: 12-31%), depending on sex and comorbid disease. CONCLUSION: Prior to infection, demographics and comorbid conditions can discriminate COVID-19 mortality risk overall and within age strata. The VACO Index reproducibly identified individuals at substantial risk of COVID-19 mortality who might consider continuing social distancing, despite relaxed state and local guidelines.

Patterns of COVID-19 testing and mortality by race and ethnicity among United States veterans: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that racial and ethnic minority communities around the world are experiencing a disproportionate burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated racial and ethnic disparities in patterns of COVID-19 testing (i.e., who received testing and who tested positive) and subsequent mortality in the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This retrospective cohort study included 5,834,543 individuals receiving care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs; most (91%) were men, 74% were non-Hispanic White (White), 19% were non-Hispanic Black (Black), and 7% were Hispanic. We evaluated associations between race/ethnicity and receipt of COVID-19 testing, a positive test result, and 30-day mortality, with multivariable adjustment for a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics including comorbid conditions, health behaviors, medication history, site of care, and urban versus rural residence. Between February 8 and July 22, 2020, 254,595 individuals were tested for COVID-19, of whom 16,317 tested positive and 1,057 died. Black individuals were more likely to be tested (rate per 1,000 individuals: 60.0, 95% CI 59.6-60.5) than Hispanic (52.7, 95% CI 52.1-53.4) and White individuals (38.6, 95% CI 38.4-38.7). While individuals from minority backgrounds were more likely to test positive (Black versus White: odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% CI 1.85-2.01, p < 0.001; Hispanic versus White: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.74-1.94, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality did not differ by race/ethnicity (Black versus White: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17, p = 0.74; Hispanic versus White: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, p = 0.94). The disparity between Black and White individuals in testing positive for COVID-19 was stronger in the Midwest (OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.41-2.95, p < 0.001) than the West (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.39, p < 0.001). The disparity in testing positive for COVID-19 between Hispanic and White individuals was consistent across region, calendar time, and outbreak pattern. Study limitations include underrepresentation of women and a lack of detailed information on social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, we found that Black and Hispanic individuals are experiencing an excess burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection not entirely explained by underlying medical conditions or where they live or receive care. There is an urgent need to proactively tailor strategies to contain and prevent further outbreaks in racial and ethnic minority communities.