Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness.

Importance: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (ß = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: ß = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: ß = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

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.

Developing a COVID-19 WHO Clinical Progression Scale inpatient database from electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: There is a need for a systematic method to implement the World Health Organization's Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS), an ordinal clinical severity score for coronavirus disease 2019 patients, to electronic health record (EHR) data. We discuss our process of developing guiding principles mapping EHR data to WHO-CPS scores across multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using WHO-CPS as a guideline, we developed the technical blueprint to map EHR data to ordinal clinical severity scores. We applied our approach to data from 2 medical centers. RESULTS: Our method was able to classify clinical severity for 100% of patient days for 2756 patient encounters across 2 institutions. DISCUSSION: Implementing new clinical scales can be challenging; strong understanding of health system data architecture was integral to meet the clinical intentions of the WHO-CPS. CONCLUSION: We describe a detailed blueprint for how to apply the WHO-CPS scale to patient data from the EHR.

Predicting 30-day return hospital admissions in patients with COVID-19 discharged from the emergency department: A national retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at risk for deterioration after discharge from the emergency department (ED) remains a clinical challenge. Our objective was to develop a prediction model that identifies patients with COVID-19 at risk for return and hospital admission within 30 days of ED discharge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of discharged adult ED patients (n = 7529) with SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 unique hospitals contributing to the National Registry of Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Care. The primary outcome was return hospital admission within 30 days. Models were developed using classification and regression tree (CART), gradient boosted machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and least absolute shrinkage and selection (LASSO) approaches. RESULTS: Among patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED on their index encounter, 571 (7.6%) returned for hospital admission within 30 days. The machine-learning (ML) models (GBM, RF, and LASSO) performed similarly. The RF model yielded a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78), with a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39-0.54) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82-0.85). Predictive variables, including lowest oxygen saturation, temperature, or history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or obesity, were common to all ML models. CONCLUSIONS: A predictive model identifying adult ED patients with COVID-19 at risk for return for return hospital admission within 30 days is feasible. Ensemble/boot-strapped classification methods (eg, GBM, RF, and LASSO) outperform the single-tree CART method. Future efforts may focus on the application of ML models in the hospital setting to optimize the allocation of follow-up resources.

Understanding public perception of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social distancing on Twitter.

OBJECTIVE: Social distancing policies are key in curtailing severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread, but their effectiveness is heavily contingent on public understanding and collective adherence. We studied public perception of social distancing through organic, large-scale discussion on Twitter. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Between March 27 and April 10, 2020, we retrieved English-only tweets matching two trending social distancing hashtags, #socialdistancing and #stayathome. We analyzed the tweets using natural language processing and machine-learning models, and we conducted a sentiment analysis to identify emotions and polarity. We evaluated the subjectivity of tweets and estimated the frequency of discussion of social distancing rules. We then identified clusters of discussion using topic modeling and associated sentiments. RESULTS: We studied a sample of 574,903 tweets. For both hashtags, polarity was positive (mean, 0.148; SD, 0.290); only 15% of tweets had negative polarity. Tweets were more likely to be objective (median, 0.40; IQR, 0-0.6) with ~30% of tweets labeled as completely objective (labeled as 0 in range from 0 to 1). Approximately half of tweets (50.4%) primarily expressed joy and one-fifth expressed fear and surprise. Each correlated well with topic clusters identified by frequency including leisure and community support (ie, joy), concerns about food insecurity and quarantine effects (ie, fear), and unpredictability of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications (ie, surprise). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the positive sentiment, preponderance of objective tweets, and topics supporting coping mechanisms, we concluded that Twitter users generally supported social distancing in the early stages of their implementation.

Derivation With Internal Validation of a Multivariable Predictive Model to Predict COVID-19 Test Results in Emergency Department Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed acute care providers in demanding situations in predicting disease given the clinical variability, desire to cohort patients, and high variance in testing availability. An approach to stratifying patients by likelihood of disease based on rapidly available emergency department (ED) clinical data would offer significant operational and clinical value. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a predictive model to aid in the discrimination of patients undergoing investigation for COVID-19. METHODS: All patients greater than 18 years presenting to a single academic ED who were tested for COVID-19 during this index ED evaluation were included. Outcome was defined as the result of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing during the index visit or any positive result within the following 7 days. Variables included chest radiograph interpretation, disease-specific screening questions, and laboratory data. Three models were developed with a split-sample approach to predict outcome of the PCR test utilizing logistic regression, random forest, and gradient-boosted decision tree methods. Model discrimination was evaluated comparing area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) and point statistics at a predefined threshold. RESULTS: A total of 1,026 patients were included in the study collected between March and April 2020. Overall, there was disease prevalence of 9.6% in the population under study during this time frame. The logistic regression model was found to have an AUC of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84 to 0.94) when including four features: exposure history, temperature, white blood cell count (WBC), and chest radiograph result. Random forest method resulted in AUC of 0.86 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92) and gradient boosting had an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91). With a consistently held negative predictive value, the logistic regression model had a positive predictive value of 0.29 (0.2-0.39) compared to 0.2 (0.14-0.28) for random forest and 0.22 (0.15-0.3) for the gradient-boosted method. CONCLUSION: The derived predictive models offer good discriminating capacity for COVID-19 disease and provide interpretable and usable methods for those providers caring for these patients at the important crossroads of the community and the health system. We found utilization of the logistic regression model utilizing exposure history, temperature, WBC, and chest X-ray result had the greatest discriminatory capacity with the most interpretable model. Integrating a predictive model-based approach to COVID-19 testing decisions and patient care pathways and locations could add efficiency and accuracy to decrease uncertainty.