D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data. RESULTS: Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%-98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%-99.7%). CONCLUSION: A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.

Biomarker derived risk scores predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding among patients with COVID-19.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients with COVID-19 infection. Understanding which patients are likely to develop VTE may inform pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis decision making. The hospital-associated venous thromboembolism-Intermountain Risk Score (HA-VTE IMRS) and the hospital-associated major bleeding-Intermountain Risk Score (HA-MB IMRS) are risk scores predictive of VTE and bleeding that were derived from only patient age and data found in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic panel (BMP). Objectives: We assessed the HA-VTE IMRS and HA-MB IMRS for predictiveness of 90-day VTE and major bleeding, respectively, among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, and further investigated if adding D-dimer improved these predictions. We also reported 30-day outcomes. Patients/Methods: We identified 5047 sequential patients with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a CBC and BMP between 2 days before and 7 days following the diagnosis of COVID-19 from March 12, 2020, to February 28, 2021. We calculated the HA-VTE IMRS and the HA-MB IMRS for all patients. We assessed the added predictiveness of D-dimer obtained within 48 hours of the COVID test. Results: The HA-VTE IMRS yielded a c-statistic of 0.70 for predicting 90-day VTE and adding D-dimer improved the c-statistic to 0.764 with the corollary sensitivity/specificity/positive/negative predictive values of 49.4%/75.7%/6.7%/97.7% and 58.8%/76.2%/10.9%/97.4%, respectively. Among hospitalized and ambulatory patients separately, the HA-VTE IMRS performed similarly. The HA-MB IMRS predictiveness for 90-day major bleeding yielded a c-statistic of 0.64. Conclusion: The HA-VTE IMRS and HA-MB IMRS predict 90- and 30-day VTE and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Adding D-dimer improved the predictiveness of the HA-VTE IMRS for VTE.

Perspectives of opioid use disorder treatment providers during COVID-19: Adapting to flexibilities and sustaining reforms.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented temporary federal and state regulatory flexibilities that rapidly transformed medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment delivery. This study aimed to understand changes in treatment providers' care during COVID-19, provider experiences with the adaptations, and perceptions of which changes should be sustained long-term. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 New Jersey MOUD providers, purposively sampled to reflect diversity in provider setting, specialty, and other characteristics. Using a rapid analysis approach, we summarized content within interview domains and analyzed domains across participants for recurring concepts and themes. RESULTS: MOUD treatment practice changes taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic included a rapid shift from in-person care to telehealth, reduction in frequency of toxicology testing and psychosocial/counseling services, and modifications to prescription durations and take-home methadone supplies. Modifications to practice were positively received and reinforced a sense of autonomy for providers as well as enhancing the ability to provide patient-centered care. All respondents expressed support for making temporary regulatory flexibilities permanent, but differed in their implementation of the flexibilities and the extent to which they planned to modify their own practices long-term. CONCLUSION: Findings support sustaining temporary regulatory and payment changes to MOUD practice, which may have improved treatment access and allowed for more flexible, individually tailored patient care. Few negative, unintended consequences were reported by providers, but more research is needed to evaluate the patient experience with changes to practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.