Differences in COVID-19 Hospitalizations by Self-Reported Race and Ethnicity in a Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

INTRODUCTION: The true extent of racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 hospitalizations may be hidden by misclassification of race and ethnicity. This study aimed to quantify this inaccuracy in a hospital's electronic medical record (EMR) against the gold standard of self-identification and then project data onto state-level COVID-19 hospitalizations by self-identified race and ethnicity. METHODS: To identify misclassification of race and ethnicity in the EMRs of a hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, research and quality improvement staff members surveyed all available patients (N = 847) in 5 cohorts in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 at randomly selected hospital and ambulatory units. The survey asked patients to self-identify up to 12 races and ethnicities. We compared these data with data from EMRs. We then estimated the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations by projecting racial misclassifications onto publicly available data. We determined significant differences via simulation-constructed medians and 95% CIs. RESULTS: EMR-based and self-identified race and ethnicity were the same in 86.5% of the sample. Native Hawaiians (79.2%) were significantly less likely than non-Native Hawaiians (89.4%) to be correctly classified on initial analysis; this difference was driven by Native Hawaiians being more likely than non-Native Hawaiians to be multiracial (93.4% vs 30.3%). When restricted to multiracial patients only, we found no significant difference in accuracy (P = .32). The number of COVID-19-related hospitalizations was 8.7% higher among Native Hawaiians and 3.9% higher among Pacific Islanders when we projected self-identified race and ethnicity rather than using EMR data. CONCLUSION: Using self-identified rather than hospital EMR data on race and ethnicity may uncover further disparities in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Canine Olfaction: A Pilot Study.

Background: As the number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases continue to surge worldwide and new variants emerge, additional accurate, rapid, and noninvasive screening methods to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed. The number of COVID-19 cases reported globally is >455 million, and deaths have surpassed 6 million. Current diagnostic methods are expensive, invasive, and produce delayed results. While COVID-19 vaccinations are proven to help slow the spread of infection and prevent serious illness, they are not equitably available worldwide. Almost 40% of the world's population remains unvaccinated. Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 virus-associated volatile organic compounds found in the breath, urine, and sweat of infected individuals can be detected by canine olfaction. Medical detection dogs may be a feasible, accurate, and affordable SARS-CoV-2 screening method. Methods: In this double-blinded, case-control, validation study, we obtained sweat samples from inpatients and outpatients tested for SARS-CoV-2 by a polymerase chain reaction test. Medical detection dogs were trained to distinguish SARS-CoV-2-positive samples from SARS-CoV-2-negative samples using reward-based reinforcement. Results: Samples were obtained from 584 individuals (6-97 years of age; 24% positive SARS-CoV-2 samples and 76% negative SARS-CoV-2 samples). In the testing phase, all dogs performed with high accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2. The overall diagnostic sensitivity was 98%, and specificity was 92%. In a follow-up phase, 1 dog screened 153 patients for SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting with 96% diagnostic sensitivity and 100% specificity. Conclusions: Canine olfaction is an accurate and feasible method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, including asymptomatic and presymptomatic infected individuals.

Challenges and Strategies of Successful Mentoring: The Perspective of LEADS Scholars and Mentors from Minority Serving Institutions.

Mentoring continues to be a salient conversation in academia among junior and senior faculty and administrators. Mentors provide guidance and structure to junior faculty so that they can meet their academic and professional goals. Mentors also convey skills in balancing life and academic pursuits. Therefore, the purpose of this descriptive study was to provide additional insight from a training program called Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success (LEADS) regarding successful strategies and challenges of mentoring relating to lessons learned from the scholars and mentees' perspective. The LEADS program provided multiple training platforms to increase skills and knowledge regarding research to promote expertise in grant writing and submission for funding opportunities among diverse scientists. These findings reinforce the knowledge about the value of a mentor in helping define the research pathway of their mentee and underscoring the importance of mentoring.