Comparison of Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about changes in obstetric outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess whether obstetric outcomes and pregnancy-related complications changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included pregnant patients receiving care at 463 US hospitals whose information appeared in the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The relative differences in birth outcomes, pregnancy-related complications, and length of stay (LOS) during the pandemic period (March 1, 2020, to April 31, 2021) were compared with the prepandemic period (January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020) using logistic and Poisson models, adjusting for patients' characteristics, and comorbidities and with month and hospital fixed effects. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 primary outcomes were the relative change in preterm vs term births, mortality outcomes, and mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included the relative change in pregnancy-related complications and LOS. Results: There were 849 544 and 805 324 pregnant patients in the prepandemic and COVID-19 pandemic periods, respectively, and there were no significant differences in patient characteristics between periods, including age (≥35 years: 153 606 [18.1%] vs 148 274 [18.4%]), race and ethnicity (eg, Hispanic patients: 145 475 [47.1%] vs 143 905 [17.9%]; White patients: 456 014 [53.7%] vs 433 668 [53.9%]), insurance type (Medicaid: 366 233 [43.1%] vs 346 331 [43.0%]), and comorbidities (all standardized mean differences <0.10). There was a 5.2% decrease in live births during the pandemic. Maternal death during delivery hospitalization increased from 5.17 to 8.69 deaths per 100 000 pregnant patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.58). There were minimal changes in mode of delivery (vaginal: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.996-1.02; primary cesarean: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; vaginal birth after cesarean: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; repeated cesarean: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97). LOS during delivery hospitalization decreased by 7% (rate ratio, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.928-0.933). Lastly, the adjusted odds of gestational hypertension (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11), obstetric hemorrhage (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10), preeclampsia (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), and preexisting chronic hypertension (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09) increased. No significant changes in preexisting racial and ethnic disparities were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were increased odds of maternal death during delivery hospitalization, cardiovascular disorders, and obstetric hemorrhage. Further efforts are needed to ensure risks potentially associated with the COVID-19 pandemic do not persist beyond the current state of the pandemic.

Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

How Should Health Professional Education Respond to Widespread Racial and Ethnic Health Inequity and Police Brutality?

Health professions educators continuously adapt curricular content in response to new scientific knowledge but can struggle to incorporate content about current social issues that profoundly affect students and learning environments. This article offers recommendations to support innovation and action as students and faculty grapple with ongoing unrest in the United States, including racism, murders of Black people by police, and COVID-19.

Assessment of Time-to-Treatment Initiation and Survival in a Cohort of Patients With Common Cancers.

Importance: Resource limitations because of pandemic or other stresses on infrastructure necessitate the triage of time-sensitive care, including cancer treatments. Optimal time to treatment is underexplored, so recommendations for which cancer treatments can be deferred are often based on expert opinion. Objective: To evaluate the association between increased time to definitive therapy and mortality as a function of cancer type and stage for the 4 most prevalent cancers in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed treatment and outcome information from patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colon cancers from 2004 to 2015, with data analyzed January to March 2020. Data on outcomes associated with appropriate curative-intent surgical, radiation, or medical therapy were gathered from the National Cancer Database. Exposures: Time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), the interval between diagnosis and therapy, using intervals of 8 to 60, 61 to 120, 121 to 180, and greater than 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: 5-year and 10-year predicted all-cause mortality. Results: This study included 2 241 706 patients (mean [SD] age 63 [11.9] years, 1 268 794 [56.6%] women, 1 880 317 [83.9%] White): 1 165 585 (52.0%) with breast cancer, 853 030 (38.1%) with prostate cancer, 130 597 (5.8%) with NSCLC, and 92 494 (4.1%) with colon cancer. Median (interquartile range) TTI by cancer was 32 (21-48) days for breast, 79 (55-117) days for prostate, 41 (27-62) days for NSCLC, and 26 (16-40) days for colon. Across all cancers, a general increase in the 5-year and 10-year predicted mortality was associated with increasing TTI. The most pronounced mortality association was for colon cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage III: TTI 61-120 d, 38.9% vs. 181-365 d, 47.8%), followed by stage I NSCLC (5 y predicted mortality: TTI 61-120 d, 47.4% vs 181-365 d, 47.6%), while survival for prostate cancer was least associated (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, high risk: TTI 61-120 d, 12.8% vs 181-365 d, 14.1%), followed by breast cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage I: TTI 61-120 d, 11.0% vs. 181-365 d, 15.2%). A nonsignificant difference in treatment delays and worsened survival was observed for stage II lung cancer patients-who had the highest all-cause mortality for any TTI regardless of treatment timing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, for all studied cancers there was evidence that shorter TTI was associated with lower mortality, suggesting an indirect association between treatment deferral and mortality that may not become evident for years. In contrast to current pandemic-related guidelines, these findings support more timely definitive treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.