Factors Associated With Hospitalization Among Breast Cancer Patients With COVID-19: A Diverse Multi-Center Los Angeles Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected and killed millions of people worldwide. Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women and few studies have investigated the outcomes of patients with a history of breast cancer and COVID-19. We report the clinical outcomes of patients with invasive breast cancer who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including hospitalization and death, and evaluate demographic and cancer-related factors associated with these outcomes. PATIENTS: Patients with a history of invasive breast cancer and positive SARS-CoV-2 test from January 1 to December 31, 2020 at two large, academic Los Angeles health systems were included. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of the electronic medical record was performed. Data for demographic and cancer-related factors were manually abstracted. Relationships between outcomes and clinical variables were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Among a total of 132 patients, 40 (30.3%) were hospitalized, while 11 (8.3%) required intensive care support, and 8 patients (6.1%) died. Older age and presence of one or more additional comorbidities were associated with hospitalization and death (P = .010, P = .003, P = .034, P < .001). Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity was associated with hospitalization (P = .047). Cancer treatment was not associated with hospitalization or death. CONCLUSION: In our diverse, multi-center, breast cancer cohort, Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, older age and presence of other comorbidities were associated with worse outcomes from COVID-19. Breast cancer treatment, including surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, and endocrine therapy, was not associated with hospitalization in our cohort. Further studies are needed to explore the relationship between breast cancer and COVID-19 outcomes.

Effect of mortality from COVID-19 on inpatient outcomes.

When hospitals first encountered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a dearth of therapeutic options and nearly 1 in 3 patients died from the disease. By the summer of 2020, as deaths from the disease declined nationally, multiple single-center studies began to report declining mortality of patients with COVID-19. To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on hospital-based mortality, we searched the Vizient Clinical Data Base for outcomes data from approximately 600 participating hospitals, including 130 academic medical centers, from January 2017 through December 2020. More than 32 million hospital admissions were included in the analysis. After an initial spike, mortality from COVID-19 declined in all regions of the country to under 10% by June 2020 and remained constant for the remainder of the year. Despite this, inpatient, all-cause mortality has increased since the beginning of the pandemic, even those without respiratory failure. Inpatient mortality has particularly increased in elderly patients and in those requiring intubation for respiratory failure. Since June 2020, COVID-19 kills one in every 10 patients admitted to the hospital with this diagnosis. The addition of this new disease has raised overall hospital mortality especially those who require intubation for respiratory failure.

Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Patients With COVID-19 After Discharge From Acute Care Setting With Supplemental Oxygen.

Importance: To optimize patient outcomes and preserve critical acute care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services developed the SAFE @ HOME O2 Expected Practice (expected practice), enabling ambulatory oxygen management for COVID-19. Objective: To assess outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged via the expected practice approach to home or quarantine housing with supplemental home oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 621 adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were discharged from 2 large urban public hospitals caring primarily for patients receiving Medicaid from March 20 to August 19, 2020. Patients were included in the analysis cohort if they received emergency or inpatient care for COVID-19 and were discharged with home oxygen. Interventions: Patients receiving at least 3 L per minute of oxygen, stable without other indication for inpatient care, were discharged from either emergency or inpatient encounters with home oxygen equipment, educational resources, and nursing telephone follow-up within 12 to 18 hours of discharge. Nurses provided continued telephone follow up as indicated, always with physician back-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause 30-day return admission. Results: A total of 621 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (404 male [65.1%] and 217 female [34.9%]) were discharged with home oxygen. Median age of these patients was 51 years (interquartile range, 45-61 years), with 149 (24.0%) discharged from the emergency department and 472 (76%) discharged from inpatient encounters. The all-cause mortality rate was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.5%) and the 30-day return hospital admission rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-10.7%) with a median follow-up time of 26 days (interquartile range, 15-55 days). No deaths occurred in the ambulatory setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged on home oxygen had low rates of mortality and return admission within 30 days of discharge. Ambulatory management of COVID-19 with home oxygen has an acceptable safety profile, and the expected practice approach may help optimize outcomes, by ensuring right care in the right place at the right time and preserving access to acute care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Comparison of Methylprednisolone and Dexamethasone in Intensive Care Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study retrospectively compares the effectiveness of methylprednisolone to dexamethasone in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) requiring intensive care. DESIGN: This is an institutional review board approved cohort study in patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients admitted and requiring oxygen supplementation were treated with no steroids, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone. SETTING: This study takes place in the ICU's at a large, tertiary, public teaching hospital serving a primarily low-income community in urban Los Angeles. PATIENTS: All eligible patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 respiratory failure from March 1 to July 31, 2020 were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 262 patients were grouped as receiving usual care (n = 75), methylprednisolone dosed at least at 1mg/kg/day for ≥ 3 days (n = 104), or dexamethasone dosed at least at 6 mg for ≥7 days (n = 83). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All-cause mortality within 50 days of initial corticosteroid treatment as compared to usual care was calculated. The mortality effect was then stratified based on levels of respiratory support received by the patient. In this cohort of 262 patients with severe COVID-19, all-cause mortalities in the usual care, methylprednisolone, and dexamethasone groups were 41.3%, 16.4% and 26.5% at 50 days (P < 0.01) respectively. In patients requiring mechanical ventilation, mortality was 42% lower in the methylprednisolone group than in the dexamethasone group (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI: 0.235-0.956, P = 0.0385). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, sufficiently dosed methylprednisolone can lead to a further decreased mortality as compared to dexamethasone.

Impact of COVID-19 infection among cancer patients treated at the Los Angeles County Medical Center.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of cancer patients who presented to the hospital with COVID-19 infection at a safety-net hospital in Los Angeles, California, from March 2020 to June 2020. From a list of 1,163 COVID-19+ adult patients, we selected the first 50 patients with malignancy for a preliminary analysis. There were 23 males (46.0%) and 27 females (54.0%); the median age was 60.5 years (IQR 47 - 72). Thirty-nine (78.0%) of the patients were Hispanic. The most prevalent cancers were genitourinary (14, 28.0%), hematologic (11, 22.0%), and gastrointestinal (10, 20.0%). Twenty-one (42.0%) patients had active disease at COVID-19 diagnosis, while 25 (50.0%) had no evidence of disease (NED), and 4 (8.0%) were unknown. Over 1 in 3 admitted patients experienced a "severe outcome," which was defined as critical level care (14, 34.1%), use of vasopressors (9, 22.0%), intubation (8, 19.5%), or death (5, 12.2%). Patients with severe outcomes were found to have statistically higher values of absolute neutrophil count (p = 0.005), aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.049), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, (p = 0.001) and lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.040) on admission. Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between those with hematologic versus solid malignancy nor between those with active disease versus remission (both p>0.05). Thirteen (81.3%) of the 16 patients who had cancer treatment in 2020 experienced delays in cancer therapy. Additional cases are being evaluated as the pandemic continues with the goal of identifying areas for potential intervention to improve outcomes in this at-risk population.

A needle in the haystack? Assessing the significance of envelope (E) gene-negative, nucleocapsid (N2) gene-positive SARS-CoV-2 detection by the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-COV-2 assay.

The clinical significance of high crossing threshold (Ct) detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is inadequately defined. In the course of universal admission screening with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay at our institution, we observed that 3.9 % (44/1123) of SARS-CoV-2 positive results were negative for the envelope (E) gene target but positive for the nucleocapsid (N2) target. The overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate during the three-month study period was 15.4 % (1123/7285), spanning April-June 2020. The majority of patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were asymptomatic, with 29.5 % of patients symptomatic for COVID-19 at the time of presentation. Asymptomatic patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were significantly younger than symptomatic patients with the same results (average 37.6 vs. 58.4, p = 0.003). Similar proportions of prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity were noted among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (38.5 % vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.82). Among the 16 asymptomatic patients with radiographic imaging performed, four (25 %) had chest radiographic findings concerning for viral pneumonia. Interestingly, we observed an E-negative, N2-positive result in one patient with a previous SARS-CoV-2 by the Xpert Xpress that occurred 71 days prior. Critically, E-negative, N2-positive results were observed in 8 symptomatic patients with a new diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, though concerns remain about extended SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity in some patients, the ability of clinical laboratories to detect patients with high Ct values (including E-negative, N2-positive results) is vital for retaining maximal sensitivity for diagnostic purposes. Our data show that a finding of E-positive, N2-negative SARS-CoV-2 should not be used to rule out the presence of subclinical infection.