ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between test site availability and testing rate within the context of social determinants of health. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective ecological investigation was conducted using statewide COVID-19 testing data between March 2020 and December 2021. METHODS: Ordinary least squares and geographically weighted regression were used to estimate state and ZIP code level associations between testing rate and testing sites per capita, adjusting for neighbourhood-level confounders. RESULTS: The findings indicate that site availability is positively associated with the ZIP code level testing rate and that this association is amplified in communities of greater economic deprivation. In addition, economic deprivation is a key factor for consideration when examining ethnic differences in testing in medically underserved states. CONCLUSION: The study findings could be used to guide the delivery of testing facilities in resource-constrained states.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Poverty , Spatial RegressionABSTRACT
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale (OS) is used to evaluate participant outcomes in clinical trials. We modified the WHO OS to enable assessment of patient outcomes associated with various treatment agents using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a national database containing electronic Health Record (EHR) data from > 2.7 million persons with a COVID-19 diagnosis from > 55 U.S. sites. Methods: Modified OS severity scores (Table 1) were assigned in the first through fourth weeks following COVID-19 diagnosis for a sample of patients in N3C. To adjust for disease severity at patient hospitalization, we developed separate models to examine OS levels of 3, 5, 7, and 9. Elastic net penalized multinomial logistic regression was used to simultaneously identify risk factors and predict the probability of each level of the ordinal scale at week 4. We studied groups of anticoagulants (AC), steroids, antibiotics, antiviral agents (AA), monoclonal antibodies (MA), and a miscellaneous group that included all other treatments. Other factors considered were presence of comorbid conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), ethnicity, age, gender, and time of diagnosis (by quarter). Results: We included 1,489,191 COVID-19 (161,385 outpatients were excluded) patients. Patient characteristics and treatment approaches applied to each OS level were analyzed (Table 1). For hospitalized patients with a Week 1 OS score of 3,5,7, or 9, we found that increased CCI values are associated with higher probabilities of a worsened OS score at Week 4. Given that MAs are a standard treatment for patients at OS levels 3 and 5, and that steroids are typically used at OS 7 and 9, we studied treatment combinations related to MA and steroids given during Week 1. Improved outcomes by Week 4 were demonstrated with AA+MA for OS 3 and for AC+MA for OS 5 (Table 1). Patients at OS 7 in Week 1 had improved Week 4 outcomes with steroids alone while OS 7 patients with CCI>10 had better outcomes with steroids+AC. OS 9 patients treated with steroids+MA had better outcomes compared with those not given that combination. Conclusion: Our analyses identify relationships between COVID-19 serverity, specific treatments and outcomes at 4 weeks after diagnosis. Use of MA at lower levels of severity, and steroids at higher severity levels were associated with survival to hospital discharge.
ABSTRACT
Background. A major challenge to identifying effective treatments for COVID-19 has been the conflicting results offered by small, often underpowered clinical trials. The World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale (OS) has been used to measure clinical improvement among clinical trial participants and has the benefit of measuring effect across the spectrum of clinical illness. We modified the WHO OS to enable assessment of COVID-19 patient outcomes using electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods. Employing the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database of EHR data from 50 sites in the United States, we assessed patient outcomes, April 1,2020 to March 31, 2021, among those with a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, using the following modification of the WHO OS: 1=Outpatient, 3=Hospitalized, 5=Required Oxygen (any), 7=Mechanical Ventilation, 9=Organ Support (pressors;ECMO), 11=Death. OS is defined over 4 weeks beginning at first diagnosis and recalculated each week using the patient's maximum OS value in the corresponding 7-day period. Modified OS distributions were compared across time using a Pearson Chi-Squared test. Results. The study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4. The study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4. Conclusion. All Week 4 OS distributions significantly improved from the initial period (April-June 2020) compared with subsequent months, suggesting improved management. Further work is needed to determine which elements of care are driving the improved outcomes. Time series analyses must be included when assessing impact of therapeutic modalities across the COVID pandemic time frame.