Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for mortality were 1.58 (95% CI: 1.46, 1.70) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and amongst those with current cancer (aOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially amongst younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among COVID-19 patients; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Equity‐centered science education: The origin story of this special issue

Among the mechanisms of systematic erasure associated with science and science education (e.g., Shea & Sandoval, 2020;Takeuchi & Marin, 2022), the project addressed antiracism (Mills, 2015) along with a discriminatory bias toward multilingual and low-income students as well as their families and communities. However, in April 2019, public health professionals and researchers around the country launched their own science literacy campaign aimed at educating citizens on the science behind the COVID-19 virus and its spread in our communities. Https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21720 o I Negotiating mentoring relationships and supports for Black and Brown early career faculty i by Natalie King & Bhaskar Upadhyay. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21755 o I Mentoring science educators for equity-centered futures i by John Settlage. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21759 Partnering o I Beginning school-university partnerships for transformative social change in science education: Narratives from the field i by Hosun Kang & María González-Howard. The contents of this special issue are the products of a National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported working conference. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Science Education is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

The 2020 Pandemics: Lessons Learned in Academic Surgery and Beyond.

2020 was a significant year because of the occurrence of two simultaneous public health crises: the coronavirus pandemic and the public health crisis of racism brought into the spotlight by the murder of George Floyd. The coronavirus pandemic has affected all aspects of health care, particularly the delivery of surgical care, surgical education, and academic productivity. The concomitant public health crisis of racism and health inequality during the viral pandemic highlighted opportunities for action to address gaps in surgical care and the delivery of public health services. At the 2021 Academic Surgical Congress Hot Topics session on flexibility and leadership, we also explored how our military surgeon colleagues can provide guidance in leadership during times of crisis. The following is a summary of the issues discussed during the session and reflections on the important lessons learned in academic surgery over the past year.

Lofty goals and strategic plans are not enough to achieve and maintain a diverse workforce: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee conversation.

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Ad Hoc Committee organized a luncheon symposium with a distinguished panel of experts to discuss how to ensure a diverse surgical workforce. The panelists discussed the current state of DEI efforts within surgical departments and societal demographic changes that inform and necessitate surgical workforce adaptations. Concrete recommendations included the following: obtain internal data, establish DEI committee, include bias training, review hiring and compensation practices, support the department members doing the DEI work, commit adequate funding, be intentional with DEI efforts, and develop and support alternate pathways for promotion and tenure.

Impacts of social distancing policies on mobility and COVID-19 case growth in the US.

Social distancing remains an important strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. However, the impacts of specific state-level policies on mobility and subsequent COVID-19 case trajectories have not been completely quantified. Using anonymized and aggregated mobility data from opted-in Google users, we found that state-level emergency declarations resulted in a 9.9% reduction in time spent away from places of residence. Implementation of one or more social distancing policies resulted in an additional 24.5% reduction in mobility the following week, and subsequent shelter-in-place mandates yielded an additional 29.0% reduction. Decreases in mobility were associated with substantial reductions in case growth two to four weeks later. For example, a 10% reduction in mobility was associated with a 17.5% reduction in case growth two weeks later. Given the continued reliance on social distancing policies to limit the spread of COVID-19, these results may be helpful to public health officials trying to balance infection control with the economic and social consequences of these policies.

The scale and dynamics of COVID-19 epidemics across Europe.

The number of COVID-19 deaths reported from European countries has varied more than 100-fold. In terms of coronavirus transmission, the relatively low death rates in some countries could be due to low intrinsic (e.g. low population density) or imposed contact rates (e.g. non-pharmaceutical interventions) among individuals, or because fewer people were exposed or susceptible to infection (e.g. smaller populations). Here, we develop a flexible empirical model (skew-logistic) to distinguish among these possibilities. We find that countries reporting fewer deaths did not generally have intrinsically lower rates of transmission and epidemic growth, and flatter epidemic curves. Rather, countries with fewer deaths locked down earlier, had shorter epidemics that peaked sooner and smaller populations. Consequently, as lockdowns were eased, we expected, and duly observed, a resurgence of COVID-19 across Europe.