Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Intermediate-High-risk Pulmonary Embolism: The CANARY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal treatment of intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (cCDT) plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation monotherapy in improving echocardiographic measures of right ventricle (RV) to left ventricle (LV) ratio in acute intermediate-high-risk PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism (CANARY) trial was an open-label, randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE, conducted in 2 large cardiovascular centers in Tehran, Iran, between December 22, 2018, through February 2, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to cCDT (alteplase, 0.5 mg/catheter/h for 24 hours) plus heparin vs anticoagulation monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with a 3-month echocardiographic RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9, assessed by a core laboratory, was the primary outcome. The proportion of patients with an RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization and the 3-month all-cause mortality were among secondary outcomes. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) was the main safety outcome. A clinical events committee, masked to the treatment assignment, adjudicated clinical outcomes. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 94 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [2.5] years; 27 women [29%]), of whom 85 patients completed the 3-month echocardiographic follow-up. Overall, 2 of 46 patients (4.3%) in the cCDT group and 5 of 39 patients (12.8%) in the anticoagulation monotherapy group met the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.69; P = .24). The median (IQR) 3-month RV/LV ratio was significantly lower with cCDT (0.7 [0.6-0.7]) than with anticoagulation (0.8 [0.7-0.9); P = .01). An RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization was observed in fewer patients treated with cCDT (13 of 48 [27.0%]) than anticoagulation (24 of 46 [52.1%]; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .01). Fewer patients assigned to cCDT experienced a 3-month composite of death or RV/LV greater than 0.9 (2 of 48 [4.3%] vs 8 of 46 [17.3%]; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03; P = .048). One case of nonfatal major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the cCDT group. Conclusions and Relevance: This prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE was hypothesis-generating for improvement in some efficacy outcomes and acceptable rate of major bleeding for cCDT compared with anticoagulation monotherapy and provided support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172115.

Clinical Presentation and Short- and Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis vs Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis in the RIETE Registry.

Importance: Insufficient data exist about the clinical presentation, short-term, and long-term outcomes of patients with isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT), that is, thrombosis in infrapopliteal veins without proximal extension or pulmonary embolism (PE). Objective: To determine the clinical characteristics, short-term, and 1-year outcomes in patients with IDDVT and to compare the outcomes in unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses with patients who had proximal DVT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, international cohort study in participating sites of the Registro Informatizado Enfermedad Tromboembólica (RIETE) registry conducted from March 1, 2001, through February 28, 2021. Patients included in this study had IDDVT. Patients with proximal DVT were identified for comparison. Patients were excluded if they had a history of asymptomatic DVT, upper-extremity DVT, coexisting PE, or COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were 90-day and 1-year mortality, 1-year major bleeding, and 1-year venous thromboembolism (VTE) deterioration, which was defined as subsequent development of proximal DVT or PE. Results: A total of 33 897 patients were identified with isolated DVT (without concomitant PE); 5938 (17.5%) had IDDVT (mean [SD] age, 61 [17] years; 2975 male patients [50.1%]), and 27 959 (82.5%) had proximal DVT (mean [SD] age, 65 [18] years; 14 315 male patients [51.2%]). Compared with individuals with proximal DVT, those with IDDVT had a lower comorbidity burden but were more likely to have had recent surgery or to have received hormonal therapy. Patients with IDDVT had lower risk of 90-day mortality compared with those with proximal DVT (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55). Findings were similar in 1-year unadjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.46-0.59) and adjusted analyses (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82). Patients with IDDVT had a lower 1-year hazard of VTE deterioration (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99). In 1-year adjusted analyses of patients without an adverse event within the first 3 months, IDDVT was associated with lower risk of VTE deterioration (adjusted HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.97). By 1-year follow-up, symptoms or signs of postthrombotic syndrome were less common in patients with IDDVT (47.6% vs 60.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with IDDVT had a less ominous prognosis compared with patients with proximal DVT. Such differences were likely multifactorial, including the differences in demographics, risk factors, comorbidities, particularly for all-cause mortality, and a potential association of thrombus location with VTE deterioration and postthrombotic syndrome. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the optimal long-term management of IDDVT.

Aligning mission to digital health strategy in academic medical centers.

The strategies of academic medical centers arise from core values and missions that aim to provide unmatched clinical care, patient experience, research, education, and training. These missions drive nearly all activities. They should also drive digital health activities - and particularly now given the rapid adoption of digital health, marking one of the great transformations of healthcare; increasing pressures on health systems to provide more cost-effective care; the pandemic-accelerated funding and rise of well-funded new entrants and technology giants that provide more convenient forms of care; and a more favorable regulatory and reimbursement landscape to incorporate digital health approaches. As academic medical centers emerge from a pandemic-related reactionary digital health posture, where pressures to adopt more digital health technologies mount, a broad digital health realignment that leverages the strengths of such centers is required to accomplish their missions.

Study protocol for the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-COV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE): A longitudinal study of the medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Reports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: INSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses. RESULTS: Participating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Trends and Variation in the Gap Between Current and Anticipated Life Satisfaction in the United States, 2008-2020.

Objectives. To describe national- and county-level trends and variation in a novel measure of hope. Methods. Using data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index (n = 2 766 728), we summarized the difference between anticipated life satisfaction (ALS) and current life satisfaction (CLS), measured by the Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale, for each year from 2008 to 2020 and by county over two 5-year periods in the United States. Results. Across all years, there was a significant positive trend in the difference between ALS and CLS for the nation (P = .024), which remained positive but not significant when we excluded 2020. Maintenance of ALS with a decrease in CLS drove the 2020 increase. From 2008-2012 to 2013-2017, 14.5% of counties with 300 or more responses (n = 599) experienced an increase in the difference of more than 1 SD, whereas 13.9% experienced a more than 1 SD decrease. Fifty-two counties experienced decreases in ALS and CLS. Conclusions. Responding to trends in the gap between ALS and CLS at national and local levels is essential for the collective well-being of our nation, especially as we navigate and emerge from crisis.

A multicenter evaluation of computable phenotyping approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Diagnosis codes are used to study SARS-CoV2 infections and COVID-19 hospitalizations in administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. Using EHR data (April 2020-March 2021) at the Yale-New Haven Health System and the three hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic, computable phenotype definitions based on ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) were evaluated against positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen tests. We included 69,423 patients at Yale and 75,748 at Mayo Clinic with either a diagnosis code or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The precision and recall of a COVID-19 diagnosis for a positive test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively, at Yale, with higher precision (95%) and lower recall (63.5%) at Mayo Clinic, varying between 59.2% in Rochester to 97.3% in Arizona. For hospitalizations with a principal COVID-19 diagnosis, 94.8% at Yale and 80.5% at Mayo Clinic had an associated positive laboratory test, with secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 identifying additional patients. These patients had a twofold higher inhospital mortality than based on principal diagnosis. Standardization of coding practices is needed before the use of diagnosis codes in clinical research and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19.

Tracking Self-reported Symptoms and Medical Conditions on Social Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infodemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: Harnessing health-related data posted on social media in real time can offer insights into how the pandemic impacts the mental health and general well-being of individuals and populations over time. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain information on symptoms and medical conditions self-reported by non-Twitter social media users during the COVID-19 pandemic, to determine how discussion of these symptoms and medical conditions changed over time, and to identify correlations between frequency of the top 5 commonly mentioned symptoms post and daily COVID-19 statistics (new cases, new deaths, new active cases, and new recovered cases) in the United States. METHODS: We used natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to identify symptom- and medical condition-related topics being discussed on social media between June 14 and December 13, 2020. The sample posts were geotagged by NetBase, a third-party data provider. We calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity to validate the classification of posts. We also assessed the frequency of health-related discussions on social media over time during the study period, and used Pearson correlation coefficients to identify statistically significant correlations between the frequency of the 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms and fluctuation of daily US COVID-19 statistics. RESULTS: Within a total of 9,807,813 posts (nearly 70% were sourced from the United States), we identified a discussion of 120 symptom-related topics and 1542 medical condition-related topics. Our classification of the health-related posts had a positive predictive value of over 80% and an average classification rate of 92% sensitivity. The 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms on social media during the study period were anxiety (in 201,303 posts or 12.2% of the total posts mentioning symptoms), generalized pain (189,673, 11.5%), weight loss (95,793, 5.8%), fatigue (91,252, 5.5%), and coughing (86,235, 5.2%). The 5 most discussed medical conditions were COVID-19 (in 5,420,276 posts or 66.4% of the total posts mentioning medical conditions), unspecified infectious disease (469,356, 5.8%), influenza (270,166, 3.3%), unspecified disorders of the central nervous system (253,407, 3.1%), and depression (151,752, 1.9%). Changes in posts in the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, and weight loss were significant but negatively correlated with daily new COVID-19 cases in the United States (r=-0.49, r=-0.46, and r=-0.39, respectively; P<.05). Posts on the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, weight loss, fatigue, and the changes in fatigue positively and significantly correlated with daily changes in both new deaths and new active cases in the United States (r ranged=0.39-0.48; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 and symptoms of anxiety were the 2 most commonly discussed health-related topics on social media from June 14 to December 13, 2020. Real-time monitoring of social media posts on symptoms and medical conditions may help assess the population's mental health status and enhance public health surveillance for infectious disease.

Investigating Lipid-Modulating Agents for Prevention or Treatment of COVID-19: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with systemic inflammation, endothelial activation, and multiorgan manifestations. Lipid-modulating agents may be useful in treating patients with COVID-19. These agents may inhibit viral entry by lipid raft disruption or ameliorate the inflammatory response and endothelial activation. In addition, dyslipidemia with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and higher triglyceride levels portend worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Upon a systematic search, 40 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with lipid-modulating agents were identified, including 17 statin trials, 14 omega-3 fatty acids RCTs, 3 fibrate RCTs, 5 niacin RCTs, and 1 dalcetrapib RCT for the management or prevention of COVID-19. From these 40 RCTs, only 2 have reported preliminary results, and most others are ongoing. This paper summarizes the ongoing or completed RCTs of lipid-modulating agents in COVID-19 and the implications of these trials for patient management.

Association of COVID-19 Hospitalization Volume and Case Growth at US Hospitals with Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whether the volume of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations is associated with outcomes has important implications for the organization of hospital care both during this pandemic and future novel and rapidly evolving high-volume conditions. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 hospitalizations at US hospitals in the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with ≥10 cases between January and August 2020. We evaluated the association of COVID-19 hospitalization volume and weekly case growth indexed to hospital bed capacity, with hospital risk-standardized in-hospital case-fatality rate (rsCFR). RESULTS: There were 85 hospitals with 15,329 COVID-19 hospitalizations, with a median hospital case volume was 118 (interquartile range, 57, 252) and median growth rate of 2 cases per 100 beds per week but varied widely (interquartile range: 0.9 to 4.5). There was no significant association between overall hospital COVID-19 case volume and rsCFR (rho, 0.18, P = .09). However, hospitals with more rapid COVID-19 case-growth had higher rsCFR (rho, 0.22, P = 0.047), increasing across case growth quartiles (P trend = .03). Although there were no differences in medical treatments or intensive care unit therapies (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors), the highest case growth quartile had 4-fold higher odds of above median rsCFR, compared with the lowest quartile (odds ratio, 4.00; 1.15 to 13.8, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: An accelerated case growth trajectory is a marker of hospitals at risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, identifying sites that may be targets for influx of additional resources or triage strategies. Early identification of such hospital signatures is essential as our health system prepares for future health challenges.

Disparities in Excess Mortality Associated with COVID-19 - United States, 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NH/PI) populations in the United States. These populations have experienced higher rates of infection and mortality compared with the non-Hispanic White (White) population (1-5) and greater excess mortality (i.e., the percentage increase in the number of persons who have died relative to the expected number of deaths for a given place and time) (6). A limitation of existing research on excess mortality among racial/ethnic minority groups has been the lack of adjustment for age and population change over time. This study assessed excess mortality incidence rates (IRs) (e.g., the number of excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) in the United States during December 29, 2019-January 2, 2021, by race/ethnicity and age group using data from the National Vital Statistics System. Among all assessed racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic Asian [Asian], AI/AN, Black, Hispanic, NH/PI, and White populations), excess mortality IRs were higher among persons aged ≥65 years (426.4 to 1033.5 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) than among those aged 25-64 years (30.2 to 221.1) and those aged <25 years (-2.9 to 14.1). Among persons aged <65 years, Black and AI/AN populations had the highest excess mortality IRs. Among adults aged ≥65 years, Black and Hispanic persons experienced the highest excess mortality IRs of >1,000 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years. These findings could help guide more tailored public health messaging and mitigation efforts to reduce disparities in mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States,* by identifying the racial/ethnic groups and age groups with the highest excess mortality rates.

Trends and geographical variation in population thriving, struggling and suffering across the USA, 2008-2017: a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Well-being is a holistic, positively framed conception of health, integrating physical, emotional, social, financial, community and spiritual aspects of life. High well-being is an intrinsically worthy goal for individuals, communities and nations. Multiple measures of well-being exist, yet we lack information to identify benchmarks, geographical disparities and targets for intervention to improve population life evaluation in the USA. DESIGN: Using data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, we conducted retrospective analyses of a series of cross-sectional samples. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We summarised select well-being outcomes nationally for each year, and by county (n=599) over two time periods, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We report percentages of people thriving, struggling and suffering using the Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale, percentages reporting high or low current life satisfaction, percentages reporting high or low future life optimism, and changes in these percentages over time. RESULTS: Nationally, the percentage of people that report thriving increased from 48.9% in 2008 to 56.3% in 2017 (p<0.05). The percentage suffering was not significantly different over time, ranging from 4.4% to 3.2%. In 2013-2017, counties with the highest life evaluation had a mean 63.6% thriving and 2.3% suffering while counties with the lowest life evaluation had a mean 49.5% thriving and 6.5% suffering, with counties experiencing up to 10% suffering, threefold the national average. Changes in county-level life evaluation also varied. While counties with the greatest improvements experienced 10%-15% increase in the absolute percentage thriving or 3%-5% decrease in absolute percentage suffering, most counties experienced no change and some experienced declines in life evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of the US population thriving increased from 2008 to 2017 while the percentage suffering remained unchanged. Marked geographical variation exists indicating priority areas for intervention.

SalivaDirect: A simplified and flexible platform to enhance SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity.

BACKGROUND: Scaling SARS-CoV-2 testing to meet demands of safe reopenings continues to be plagued by assay costs and supply chain shortages. In response, we developed SalivaDirect, which received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: We simplified our saliva-based diagnostic test by (1) not requiring collection tubes with preservatives, (2) replacing nucleic acid extraction with a simple enzymatic and heating step, and (3) testing specimens with a dualplex qRT-PCR assay. Moreover, we validated SalivaDirect with reagents and instruments from multiple vendors to minimize supply chain issues. FINDINGS: From our hospital cohort, we show a high positive agreement (94%) between saliva tested with SalivaDirect and nasopharyngeal swabs tested with a commercial qRT-PCR kit. In partnership with the National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), we tested 3,779 saliva specimens from healthy individuals and detected low rates of invalid (0.3%) and false-positive (<0.05%) results. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that saliva is a valid alternative to swabs for SARS-CoV-2 screening and that SalivaDirect can make large-scale testing more accessible and affordable. Uniquely, we can designate other laboratories to use our sensitive, flexible, and simplified platform under our EUA (https://publichealth.yale.edu/salivadirect/). FUNDING: This study was funded by the NBA and NBPA (N.D.G.), the Huffman Family Donor Advised Fund (N.D.G.), a Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (N.D.G.), the Yale Institute for Global Health (N.D.G.), and the Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Fund (A.I.K.). C.B.F.V. is supported by NWO Rubicon 019.181EN.004.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers With the Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Hypertensive Patients With COVID-19.

Background Despite its clinical significance, the risk of severe infection requiring hospitalization among outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who receive angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) remains uncertain. Methods and Results In a propensity score-matched outpatient cohort (January-May 2020) of 2263 Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals with hypertension and a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2, we determined the association of ACE inhibitors and ARBs with COVID-19 hospitalization. In a concurrent inpatient cohort of 7933 hospitalized with COVID-19, we tested their association with in-hospital mortality. The robustness of the observations was assessed in a contemporary cohort (May-August). In the outpatient study, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 0.53-1.13, P=0.18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; 0.61-1.26, P=0.48) were associated with hospitalization risk. ACE inhibitors were associated with lower hospitalization risk in the older Medicare group (HR, 0.61; 0.41-0.93, P=0.02), but not the younger commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; 0.82-5.60, P=0.12; P-interaction 0.09). Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with lower hospitalization risk in either population in the validation cohort. In the primary inpatient study cohort, neither ACE inhibitors (HR, 0.97; 0.81-1.16; P=0.74) nor ARBs (HR, 1.15; 0.95-1.38, P=0.15) were associated with in-hospital mortality. These observations were consistent in the validation cohort. Conclusions ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality. Despite early evidence for a potential association between ACE inhibitors and severe COVID-19 prevention in older individuals, the inconsistency of this observation in recent data argues against a role for prophylaxis.