Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
J Crit Care ; 77: 154322, 2023 May 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317521

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Optimal timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure is unclear. We hypothesized that a strategy of IMV as opposed to continuing high flow oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilation each day after reaching a high FiO2 threshold would be associated with worse in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California's 36 medical centers, we identified patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure who reached ≥80% FiO2 on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation. Exposure was IMV initiation each day after reaching high FiO2 threshold (T0). We developed propensity scores with overlap weighting for receipt of IMV each day adjusting for confounders. We reported relative risk of inpatient death with 95% Confidence Interval. RESULTS: Of 28,035 hospitalizations representing 21,175 patient-days, 5758 patients were included (2793 received and 2965 did not receive IMV). Patients receiving IMV had higher unadjusted mortality (63.6% versus 18.2%, P < 0.0001). On each day after reaching T0 through day >10, the adjusted relative risk was higher for those receiving IMV compared to those not receiving IMV (Relative Risk>1). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of IMV on each day after patients reach high FiO2 threshold was associated with higher inpatient mortality after adjusting for time-varying confounders. Remaining on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation does not appear to be harmful compared to IMV. Prospective evaluation is needed.

3.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(46): e2215620119, 2022 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2282074

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans
4.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis ; 2022 Dec 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2243620

ABSTRACT

Background: It is unclear whether persistent inhaled steroid exposure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hospitalization risk. Objective: To examine the association between persistent steroid exposure and COVID-19-related hospitalization risk in COPD. Study Design and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California healthcare system (February 2, 2020, to September 30, 2020) for patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and a positive polymerase chain reaction test result for COVID-19. Primary exposure was persistent oral and/or inhaled steroid exposure defined as ≥6 months of prescriptions filled in the year before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for the primary outcome of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death/hospice referral. Steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 diagnosis was a covariate. Results: Of >4.3 million adults, 697 had COVID-19 and COPD, of whom 270 (38.7%) had COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Overall, 538 (77.2%) were neither exposed to steroids in the month before COVID-19 diagnosis nor persistently exposed; 53 (7.6%) exposed in the month before but not persistently; 23 (3.3%) exposed persistently but not in the month before; and 83 (11.9%) exposed both persistently and in the month before. Adjusting for all confounders including steroid use in the month before, the odds ratio for hospitalization was 0.77 (95% CI 0.41-1.46) for patients persistently exposed to steroids before COVID-19 diagnosis. Interpretation: No association was observed between persistent steroid exposure and the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization in COPD patients.

6.
J Hosp Med ; 2022 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2233613

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions. EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME: We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration. CONCLUSION: Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.

7.
Respir Med ; 206: 107064, 2022 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2233612

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may have worse coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes. We compared COVID-19 hospitalization risk in patients with and without COPD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥40 years, SARS-CoV-2 positive, and with Kaiser Permanente Northern California membership ≥1 year before COVID-19 diagnosis (electronic health records and claims data). COVID-19-related hospitalization risk was assessed by sequentially adjusted logistic regression models and stratified by disease severity. Secondary outcome was death/hospice referral after COVID-19. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 19,558 COVID-19 patients, 697 (3.6%) had COPD. Compared with patients without COPD, COPD patients were older (median age: 69 vs 53 years); had higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5 vs 0) and more median baseline outpatient (8 vs 4), emergency department (2 vs 1), and inpatient (2 vs 1) encounters. Unadjusted analyses showed increased odds of hospitalization with COPD (odds ratio [OR]: 3.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.40-4.60). After full risk adjustment, there were no differences in odds of hospitalization (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.40) or death/hospice referral (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72-1.27) between patients with and without COPD. Primary/secondary outcomes did not differ by COPD severity, except for higher odds of hospitalization in COPD patients requiring supplemental oxygen versus those without COPD (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.02-3.33). CONCLUSIONS: Except for hospitalization among patients using supplemental oxygen, no differences in odds of hospitalization or death/hospice referral were observed in the COVID-19 patient sample depending on whether they had COPD.

8.
Crit Care ; 27(1): 34, 2023 Jan 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2214619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent single-center reports have suggested that community-acquired bacteremic co-infection in the context of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be an important driver of mortality; however, these reports have not been validated with a multicenter, demographically diverse, cohort study with data spanning the pandemic. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, inpatient encounters were assessed for COVID-19 with community-acquired bacteremic co-infection using 48-h post-admission blood cultures and grouped by: (1) confirmed co-infection [recovery of bacterial pathogen], (2) suspected co-infection [negative culture with ≥ 2 antimicrobials administered], and (3) no evidence of co-infection [no culture]. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation. COVID-19 bacterial co-infection risk factors and impact on primary outcomes were determined using multivariate logistic regressions and expressed as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (Cohort, OR 95% CI, Wald test p value). RESULTS: The studied cohorts included 13,781 COVID-19 inpatient encounters from 2020 to 2022 in the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB, n = 4075) and Ochsner Louisiana State University Health-Shreveport (OLHS, n = 9706) cohorts with confirmed (2.5%), suspected (46%), or no community-acquired bacterial co-infection (51.5%) and a comparison cohort consisting of 99,170 inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019 (UAB pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort). Significantly increased likelihood of COVID-19 bacterial co-infection was observed in patients with elevated ≥ 15 neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (UAB: 1.95 [1.21-3.07]; OLHS: 3.65 [2.66-5.05], p < 0.001 for both) within 48-h of hospital admission. Bacterial co-infection was found to confer the greatest increased risk for in-hospital mortality (UAB: 3.07 [2.42-5.46]; OLHS: 4.05 [2.29-6.97], p < 0.001 for both), ICU admission (UAB: 4.47 [2.87-7.09], OLHS: 2.65 [2.00-3.48], p < 0.001 for both), and mechanical ventilation (UAB: 3.84 [2.21-6.12]; OLHS: 2.75 [1.87-3.92], p < 0.001 for both) across both cohorts, as compared to other risk factors for severe disease. Observed mortality in COVID-19 bacterial co-infection (24%) dramatically exceeds the mortality rate associated with community-acquired bacteremia in pre-COVID-19 pandemic inpatients (5.9%) and was consistent across alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a prognostic indicator of COVID-19 bacterial co-infection within 48-h of admission. Community-acquired bacterial co-infection, as defined by blood culture-positive results, confers greater increased risk of in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation than previously described risk factors (advanced age, select comorbidities, male sex) for COVID-19 mortality, and is independent of SARS-CoV-2 variant.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , COVID-19 , Coinfection , Community-Acquired Infections , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , Retrospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Pandemics , Hospital Mortality , Bacteria , Risk Factors , Intensive Care Units
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(1): e2253269, 2023 01 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2208827

ABSTRACT

This cohort study of patients at a single integrated health system examines trends in COVID-19­related treatment location and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Outpatients , Delivery of Health Care , Hospitals , Intensive Care Units
10.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(33): e2204141119, 2022 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1960626

ABSTRACT

Susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 infection vary widely. Prior exposure to endemic coronaviruses, common in young children, may protect against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated risk of severe COVID-19 among adults with and without exposure to young children in a large, integrated healthcare system. Adults with children 0-5 years were matched 1:1 to adults with children 6-11 years, 12-18 years, and those without children based upon a COVID-19 propensity score and risk factors for severe COVID-19. COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and need for intensive care unit (ICU) were assessed in 3,126,427 adults, of whom 24% (N = 743,814) had children 18 years or younger, and 8.8% (N = 274,316) had a youngest child 0-5 years. After 1:1 matching, propensity for COVID-19 infection and risk factors for severe COVID-19 were well balanced between groups. Rates of COVID-19 infection were slightly higher for adults with exposure to older children (incident risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, [1.05-1.12] and IRR 1.09 [1.05-1.13] for adults with children 6-11 and 12-18, respectively), compared to those with children 0-5 years, although no difference in rates of COVID-19 illness requiring hospitalization or ICU admission was observed. However, adults without exposure to children had lower rates of COVID-19 infection (IRR 0.85, [0.83-0.87]) but significantly higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization (IRR 1.49, [1.29-1.73]) and hospitalization requiring ICU admission (IRR 1.76, [1.19-2.58]) compared to those with children aged 0-5. In a large, real-world population, exposure to young children was associated with less severe COVID-19 illness. Endemic coronavirus cross-immunity may play a role in protection against severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Patient Acuity , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Child, Preschool , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors
11.
Ann Surg ; 276(5): e265-e272, 2022 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1948628

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether COVID-19 vaccination status or mode of anesthesia modified the temporal harms associated with surgery following coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection. BACKGROUND: Surgery shortly after COVID-19 infection is associated with higher rates of complications, leading to recommendations to delay surgery following COVID-19 infection when possible. However, prior studies were based on populations with low or no prevalence of vaccination. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent scheduled surgery in a health system from January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2022 (N=228,913) was performed. Patients were grouped by time of surgery relative to COVID-19 test positivity: 0 to 4 weeks after COVID-19 ("early post-COVID-19"), 4 to 8 weeks after COVID-19 ("mid post-COVID-19"), >8 weeks after COVID-19 ("late post-COVID-19"), surgery at least 30 days before subsequent COVID-19 ("pre-COVID-19"), and surgery with no prior or subsequent test positivity for COVID-19. RESULTS: Among patients who were not fully vaccinated at the time of COVID-19 infection, the adjusted rate of perioperative complications for the early post-COVID-19 group was significantly higher than for the pre-COVID-19 group (relative risk: 1.55; P =0.05). No significantly higher risk was identified between these groups for patients who were fully vaccinated (0.66; P =1.00), or for patients who were not fully vaccinated and underwent surgery without general anesthesia (0.52; P =0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery shortly following COVID-19 infection was not associated with higher risks among fully vaccinated patients or among patients who underwent surgery without general anesthesia. Further research will be valuable to understand additional factors that modify perioperative risks associated with prior COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Vaccination
12.
JAMA Health Forum ; 2(8): e212095, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1858088

ABSTRACT

Importance: Identifying the most efficient COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategy may substantially reduce hospitalizations and save lives while ensuring an equitable vaccine distribution. Objective: To simulate the association of different vaccine allocation strategies with COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and their distribution across racial and ethnic groups. Design Setting and Participants: We developed and internally validated the risk of COVID-19 infection and risk of hospitalization models on randomly split training and validation data sets. These were used in a computer simulation study of vaccine prioritization among adult health plan members who were drawn from an integrated health care delivery system. The study was conducted from January 3, 2021, to June 1, 2021, in Oakland, California, and the data were analyzed during the same period. Main Outcomes and Measures: We simulated the association of different vaccine allocation strategies, including (1) random, (2) a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proxy, (3) age based, and (4) combinations of models for the risk of adverse outcomes (CRS) and COVID-19 infection (PROVID), with COVID-19-related hospitalizations between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, that were randomly permuted by month across 250 simulations and assessed vaccine allocation by race and ethnicity and the neighborhood deprivation index across time. Results: The study included 3 202 679 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 48.2 [18.0] years; 1 677 637 women [52.4%]; 1 525 042 men [47.6%]; 611 154 Asian [19.1%], 206 363 Black [6.4%], 642 344 Hispanic [20.1%], and 1 390 638 White individuals [43.4%]), of whom 36 137 (1.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. A risk-based strategy (CRS/PROVID) showed the largest avoidable hospitalization estimates (4954; 95% CI, 3452-5878) followed by age-based (4362; 95% CI, 2866-5175) and CDC proxy (4085; 95% CI, 2805-5109) strategies. Random vaccination showed substantially lower reductions in adverse outcomes. Risk-based strategies also showed the largest number of avoidable COVID-19 deaths (joint CRS/PROVID) and household transmissions. Risk-based (PROVID) and CDC proxy strategies were estimated to vaccinate the highest percentage of Hispanic and Black patients in 8 months (joint CRS/PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 185 530 [90%] Black; PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 198 480 [96%] Black; CDC proxy: 605 770 [95%] Hispanic and 151 772 [74%] Black) compared with an age-based approach (438 423 [68%] Hispanic, 154 714 [75%] Black). Overall, the PROVID and joint CRS/PROVID risk-based strategies were estimated to be followed by the most patients from areas with high neighborhood deprivation index being vaccinated early. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling study of adults from a large integrated health care delivery system, risk-based strategies were associated with the largest estimated reductions in COVID-19 hospitalizations, deaths, and household transmissions compared with the CDC proxy and age-based strategies, with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black patients were estimated to be vaccinated early in the process compared with the CDC strategy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ethnicity , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Computer Simulation , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
13.
J Intern Med ; 292(2): 377-384, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832169

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough infections are common. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 by vaccination status using retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We generated propensity scores for receipt of full vaccination in adults requiring supplemental oxygen hospitalized at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (1 April 2021 to 30 November 2021) with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction tests. Optimal matching of fully vaccinated/unvaccinated patients was performed comparing in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 7305 patients, 1463 (20.0%) were full, 138 (1.9%) were partial, and 5704 (78.1%) were unvaccinated. Fully vaccinated were older than partial or unvaccinated (71.0, 63.0, and 54.0 years, respectively, p < 0.001) with more comorbidities (Comorbidity Point Scores 33.0, 22.0, and 10.0, p < 0.001) and immunosuppressant (11.5%, 8.7%, and 3.0%, p < 0.001) or chemotherapy exposure (2.8%, 0.7%, and 0.4%, p < 0.001). Fewer fully vaccinated patients died compared to matched unvaccinated (9.0% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Fully vaccinated patients are less likely to die compared to matched unvaccinated patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Comorbidity , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
NPJ Digit Med ; 5(1): 44, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773999

ABSTRACT

The development of a shared data infrastructure across health systems could improve research, clinical care, and health policy across a spectrum of diseases, including sepsis. Awareness of the potential value of such infrastructure has been heightened by COVID-19, as the lack of a real-time, interoperable data network impaired disease identification, mitigation, and eradication. The Sepsis on FHIR collaboration establishes a dynamic, federated, and interoperable system of sepsis data from 55 hospitals using 2 distinct inpatient electronic health record systems. Here we report on phase 1, a systematic review to identify clinical variables required to define sepsis and its subtypes to produce a concept mapping of elements onto Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR). Relevant papers described consensus sepsis definitions, provided criteria for sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or detailed sepsis subtypes. Studies not written in English, published prior to 1970, or "grey" literature were prospectively excluded. We analyzed 55 manuscripts yielding 151 unique clinical variables. We then mapped variables to their corresponding US Core FHIR resources and specific code values. This work establishes the framework to develop a flexible infrastructure for sharing sepsis data, highlighting how FHIR could enable the extension of this approach to other important conditions relevant to public health.

15.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e221760, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733814

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
16.
JAMA health forum ; 2(8), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1678938

ABSTRACT

Key Points Question What is the association of different vaccine allocation strategies with COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality and their distribution by racial and ethnic groups across time? Findings In this decision analytical model, the use of risk-based, age-based, and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–phased vaccine allocation strategies was simulated. Risk-based strategies were associated with the largest estimated reductions in nonelective hospitalizations, death, and household transmissions compared with the CDC- and age-based strategies, with a similar proportion of Hispanic and Black patients being vaccinated early in the process compared with the CDC strategy. Meaning The study findings suggest that risk-based vaccine prioritization strategies could have the greatest effectiveness on reducing COVID-19–related deaths and household transmissions while ensuring equitable vaccine distribution. Importance Identifying the most efficient COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategy may substantially reduce hospitalizations and save lives while ensuring an equitable vaccine distribution. Objective To simulate the association of different vaccine allocation strategies with COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality and their distribution across racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants We developed and internally validated the risk of COVID-19 infection and risk of hospitalization models on randomly split training and validation data sets. These were used in a computer simulation study of vaccine prioritization among adult health plan members who were drawn from an integrated health care delivery system. The study was conducted from January 3, 2021, to June 1, 2021, in Oakland, California, and the data were analyzed during the same period. Main Outcomes and Measures We simulated the association of different vaccine allocation strategies, including (1) random, (2) a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proxy, (3) age based, and (4) combinations of models for the risk of adverse outcomes (CRS) and COVID-19 infection (PROVID), with COVID-19-related hospitalizations between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, that were randomly permuted by month across 250 simulations and assessed vaccine allocation by race and ethnicity and the neighborhood deprivation index across time. Results The study included 3 202 679 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 48.2 [18.0] years;1 677 637 women [52.4%];1 525 042 men [47.6%];611 154 Asian [19.1%], 206 363 Black [6.4%], 642 344 Hispanic [20.1%], and 1 390 638 White individuals [43.4%]), of whom 36 137 (1.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. A risk-based strategy (CRS/PROVID) showed the largest avoidable hospitalization estimates (4954;95% CI, 3452-5878) followed by age-based (4362;95% CI, 2866-5175) and CDC proxy (4085;95% CI, 2805-5109) strategies. Random vaccination showed substantially lower reductions in adverse outcomes. Risk-based strategies also showed the largest number of avoidable COVID-19 deaths (joint CRS/PROVID) and household transmissions. Risk-based (PROVID) and CDC proxy strategies were estimated to vaccinate the highest percentage of Hispanic and Black patients in 8 months (joint CRS/PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 185 530 [90%] Black;PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 198 480 [96%] Black;CDC proxy: 605 770 [95%] Hispanic and 151 772 [74%] Black) compared with an age-based approach (438 423 [68%] Hispanic, 154 714 [75%] Black). Overall, the PROVID and joint CRS/PROVID risk-based strategies were estimated to be followed by the most patients from areas with high neighborhood deprivation index being vaccinated early. Conclusions and Relevance In this simulation modeling study of adults from a large integrated health care delivery system, risk-based strategies were associated with the largest estimated reductions in COVID-19 hospitalizations, deaths, and household transmissions compared with the CDC roxy and age-based strategies, with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black patients were estimated to be vaccinated early in the process compared with the CDC strategy. This decision analytical model simulates the association of different vaccine allocation strategies with COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality and their distribution across racial and ethnic groups.

17.
Crit Care Med ; 50(7): e638-e642, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672318

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index is a fraction of oxygen saturation, Fio2, and respiratory rate that has been validated to predict receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). This study aimed to validate ROX in a cohort of inpatients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective validation of the ROX index. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and 95% CIs of ROX for invasive mechanical ventilation any time during hospitalization. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system. PATIENTS: We identified adults with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction test within 3 weeks of, or during, hospitalization between February 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. We calculated ROX at 12 hours after HFNC initiation. We grouped patients as low (≥ 4.88), intermediate (< 4.88 and ≥ 3.85), or high (< 3.85) risk using previously published thresholds. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1,847 patients who had no limitation of life support. Of these, 525 (31.7%) received invasive mechanical ventilation any time during hospitalization and 511 died (27.7%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 12-hour ROX threshold (< 3.85) predicting invasive mechanical ventilation were 32.3% (95% CI, 28.5-36.3%), 89.8% (95% CI, 88.0-91.4%), 59.4% (95% CI, 53.8-64.9%), and 74.1% (95% CI, 71.8-76.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-hour ROX index has a positive predictive value (59.4%) using threshold of less than 3.85 for COVID-19 patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation. Our health system has embedded ROX into the electronic health record to prioritize rounding during periods of inpatient surge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Blood Gas Analysis , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies
18.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(12): 1472-1474, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1449954

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e048211, 2021 07 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1327670

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine the value of health systems data as indicators of emerging COVID-19 activity. DESIGN: Observational study of health system indicators for the COVID Hotspotting Score (CHOTS) with prospective validation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An integrated healthcare delivery system in Northern California including 21 hospitals and 4.5 million members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The CHOTS incorporated 10 variables including four major (cough/cold calls, emails, new positive COVID-19 tests, COVID-19 hospital census) and six minor (COVID-19 calls, respiratory infection and COVID-19 routine and urgent visits, and respiratory viral testing) indicators assessed with change point detection and slope metrics. We quantified cross-correlations lagged by 7-42 days between CHOTS and standardised COVID-19 hospital census using observational data from 1 April to 31 May 2020 and two waves of prospective data through 21 March 2021. RESULTS: Through 30 September 2020, peak cross-correlation between CHOTS and COVID-19 hospital census occurred with a 28-day lag at 0.78; at 42 days, the correlation was 0.69. Lagged correlation between medical centre CHOTS and their COVID-19 census was highest at 42 days for one facility (0.63), at 35 days for nine facilities (0.52-0.73), at 28 days for eight facilities (0.28-0.74) and at 14 days for two facilities (0.73-0.78). The strongest correlation for individual indicators was 0.94 (COVID-19 census) and 0.90 (new positive COVID-19 tests) lagged 1-14 days and 0.83 for COVID-19 calls and urgent clinic visits lagged 14-28 days. Cross-correlation was similar (0.73) with a 35-day lag using prospective validation from 1 October 2020 to 21 March 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Passively collected health system indicators were strongly correlated with forthcoming COVID-19 hospital census up to 6 weeks before three successive COVID-19 waves. These tools could inform communities, health systems and public health officials to identify, prepare for and mitigate emerging COVID-19 activity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , California , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL