Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
2.
JAMIA open ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1940060

ABSTRACT

Lay Summary Electronic Health Record (EHR) data collected during routine clinical care offer real world evidence to support decision making and observational research. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most powerful tools used in clinical trials is the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale which provides a minimal set of common outcome measures for guiding research. We developed a generalizable disease severity framework to facilitate research studies utilizing EHR data. EHR data on 2,880,456 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from 63 health centers across the United States were examined using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). We identified and validated concept sets using standard medical terminologies necessary to assign a level of disease severity to each patient. Patterns of change in disease severity among patients during the 28-day period following a COVID-19 diagnosis were characterized and usefulness of the proposed scale was demonstrated. Our severity scale can be used in other COVID-19 observational studies and potentially future diseases requiring point-in-time monitoring of real-world data. Objectives Although the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Progression Scale for COVID-19 is useful in prospective clinical trials, it cannot be effectively used with retrospective Electronic Health Record (EHR) datasets. Modifying the existing WHO Clinical Progression Scale, we developed an ordinal severity scale (OS) and assessed its usefulness in the analyses of COVID-19 patient outcomes using retrospective EHR data. Methods An OS was developed to assign COVID-19 disease severity using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model within the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data enclave. We then evaluated usefulness of the developed OS using heterogenous EHR data from January 2020 to October 2021 submitted to N3C by 63 healthcare organizations across the United States. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was employed to characterize changes in disease severity among patients during the 28-day period following COVID-19 diagnosis. Results The data set used in this analysis consists of 2,880,456 patients. PCA of the day-to-day variation in OS levels over the totality of the 28-day period revealed contrasting patterns of variation in disease severity within the first and second 14 days and illustrated the importance of evaluation over the full 28-day period. Discussion An OS with well-defined, robust features, based on discrete EHR data elements, is useful for assessments of COVID-19 patient outcomes, providing insights on progression of COVID-19 disease severity over time. Conclusion The OS provides a framework which can facilitate better understanding of the course of acute COVID-19, informing clinical decision-making and resource allocation.

3.
J Rural Health ; 2022 Jun 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1909479

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Rural communities are among the most underserved and resource-scarce populations in the United States. However, there are limited data on COVID-19 outcomes in rural America. This study aims to compare hospitalization rates and inpatient mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected persons stratified by residential rurality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) assesses 1,033,229 patients from 44 US hospital systems diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 2020 and June 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were utilization of supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events or hospital readmission. The analytic approach estimates 90-day survival in hospitalized patients and associations between rurality, hospitalization, and inpatient adverse events while controlling for major risk factors using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and mixed-effects logistic regression. FINDINGS: Of 1,033,229 diagnosed COVID-19 patients included, 186,882 required hospitalization. After adjusting for demographic differences and comorbidities, urban-adjacent and nonurban-adjacent rural dwellers with COVID-19 were more likely to be hospitalized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.21 and aOR 1.29, CI 1.24-1.1.34) and to die or be transferred to hospice (aOR 1.36, CI 1.29-1.43 and 1.37, CI 1.26-1.50), respectively. All secondary outcomes were more likely among rural patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization, inpatient mortality, and other adverse outcomes are higher among rural persons with COVID-19, even after adjusting for demographic differences and comorbidities. Further research is needed to understand the factors that drive health disparities in rural populations.

4.
Clin Cardiol ; 45(5): 536-539, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733857

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compare proportion of all-cause and cause-specific mortality among West Virginia Medicaid enrollees who were discharged from infective endocarditis (IE) hospitalization with and without opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnosis. METHODS: The proportions of cause-specific deaths among those who were discharged from IE-related hospitalizations were compared by OUD diagnosis. RESULTS: The top three underlying causes of death discharged from IE hospitalization were accidental drug poisoning, mental and behavioral disorders due to polysubstance use, and cardiovascular diseases. Of the total deaths occurring among patients discharged after IE-related hospitalization, the proportion has increased seven times from 2016 to 2019 among the OUD deaths while it doubled among the non-OUD deaths. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Of the total deaths occurring among patients discharged after IE-related hospitalization, the increase is higher in those with OUD diagnosis. OUD is becoming a significantly negative impactor on the survival outcome among IE patients. It is of growing importance to deliver medication for OUD treatment and harm reduction efforts to IE patients in a timely manner, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic persists.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endocarditis, Bacterial , Endocarditis , Opioid-Related Disorders , Cause of Death , Endocarditis/diagnosis , Hospitalization , Humans , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies , United States , West Virginia/epidemiology
7.
J Subst Abuse Treat ; 136: 108687, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568877

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates if social distancing measures instituted during the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic were associated with a reduction in Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) prescribing in West Virginia. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the quick implementation of public health interventions such as social distancing. This led to the use of telemedicine in the clinical setting however implementing telemedicine involves system level and infrastructure level changes within a healthcare environment. This could cause a barrier to MOUD delivery as it is often provided concomitantly with other face to face substance use and mental health services. The purpose of this study is to determine whether social distancing was associated with a reduction in MOUD prescribing in West Virginia, with the goal of adding to the knowledge of how COVID-19 and COVID-19-related mitigation strategies have impacted patients with OUD. METHODS: Prescription monitoring data were requested from the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy. We applied interrupted time series modeling to investigate MOUD prescribing practices before and after social distancing took effect. Gabapentin prescriptions were utilized as a control for comparison. RESULTS: Our study assessed state-wide buprenorphine and Suboxone prescriptions as compared to a control medication and found an increase in dosage of both medications and an increase in number of buprenorphine prescriptions, but a small decrease in buprenorphine/naloxone prescription number related to the dates of implementation of social distancing. Taken together, overall this indicates an increase in prescription number of MOUD prescriptions as well as an increase in dosage. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that social distancing measures were associated with an increase in both the number of MOUD prescriptions and the number of doses in each prescription. Significant alterations to MOUD delivery in the clinical setting were implemented in a short timeframe with the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the implementation of clinical measures to accommodate social distancing measures may provide benefit to transformation of future delivery of MOUD.


Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , COVID-19 , Opioid-Related Disorders , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Humans , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2 , West Virginia
8.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):324-325, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564350

ABSTRACT

Background A major challenge to identifying effective treatments for COVID-19 has been the conflicting results offered by small, often underpowered clinical trials. The World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale (OS) has been used to measure clinical improvement among clinical trial participants and has the benefit of measuring effect across the spectrum of clinical illness. We modified the WHO OS to enable assessment of COVID-19 patient outcomes using electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods Employing the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database of EHR data from 50 sites in the United States, we assessed patient outcomes, April 1,2020 to March 31, 2021, among those with a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, using the following modification of the WHO OS: 1=Outpatient, 3=Hospitalized, 5=Required Oxygen (any), 7=Mechanical Ventilation, 9=Organ Support (pressors;ECMO), 11=Death. OS is defined over 4 weeks beginning at first diagnosis and recalculated each week using the patient’s maximum OS value in the corresponding 7-day period. Modified OS distributions were compared across time using a Pearson Chi-Squared test. Results The study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4. Table 1. OS at week 1 and 4 by quarter The study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4. Conclusion All Week 4 OS distributions significantly improved from the initial period (April-June 2020) compared with subsequent months, suggesting improved management. Further work is needed to determine which elements of care are driving the improved outcomes. Time series analyses must be included when assessing impact of therapeutic modalities across the COVID pandemic time frame. Disclosures Sally L. Hodder, M.D., Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)

9.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S23-S24, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1563823

ABSTRACT

Background Rural communities are among the most vulnerable and resource-scarce populations in the United States. Rural data is rarely centralized, precluding comparability across regions, and no significant studies have studied this population at scale. The purpose of this study is to present findings from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) to provide insight into future research and highlight the urgent need to address health disparities in rural populations. N3C Patient Distribution This figure shows the geospatial distribution of the N3C COVID-19 positive population. N3C contains data from 55 data contributors from across the United States, 40 of whom include sufficient location information to map by ZIP Code centroid spatially. Of those sites, we selected 27 whose data met our minimum robustness qualifications for inclusion in our study. This bubble map is to scale with larger bubbles representing more patients. A. shows all N3C patients. B. shows only urban N3C distribution. C. shows the urban-adjacent rural patient distribution. D. shows the nonurban-adjacent rural patient distribution, representing the most isolated patients in N3C. Methods This retrospective cohort of 573,018 patients from 27 hospital systems presenting with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, of whom 117,897 were admitted (see Data Analysis Plan diagram for inclusion/exclusion criteria), analyzes outcomes and 30-day survival for the hospitalized population by the degree of rurality. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and mixed-effects models were used to estimate the association between rurality, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, controlling for major risk factors associated with rural-urban health discrepancies and differences in health system outcomes. The difference in distribution by rurality is described as well as supplemented by population-level statistics to confirm representativeness. Data Analysis Plan This data analysis plan includes an overview of study inclusion and exclusion criteria, the matrix for data robustness to determine potential sites to include, and our covariate selection, model building, and residual testing strategy. Results This study demonstrates a significant difference between hospital admissions and outcomes in urban versus urban-adjacent rural (UAR) and nonurban-adjacent rural (NAR) lines. Hospital admissions for UAR (OR 1.41, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 1.37 – 1.45) and NAR (OR 1.42, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 1.35 – 1.50) were significantly higher than their urban counterparts. Similar distributions were present for all-cause mortality for UAR (OR 1.39, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 1.30 – 1.49) and NAR (OR 1.38, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 1.22 – 1.55) compared to urban populations. These associations persisted despite adjustments for significant differences in BMI, Charlson Comorbidity index Score, gender, age, and the quarter of diagnosis for COVID-19. Baseline Characteristics Hospitalized COVID-19 Positive Population by Rurality Category, January 2020 – March 2021 Survival Curves in Hospitalized Patients Over 30 Days from Day of Admission This figure shows a survival plot of COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients in N3C by rural category (A), Charlson Comorbidity Index (B), Quarter of Diagnosis (C), and Age Group (D) from hospital admission through day 30. Events were censored at day 30 based on the incidence of death or transfer to hospice care. These four factors had the highest predictive power of the covariates evaluated in this study. Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios for Hospitalization and All-Cause Mortality by Rural Category, January 2020 – March 2021 This figure shows the adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios for being hospitalized or dying after hospitalization for the COVID-19 positive population in N3C. Risk is similar between adjusted and unadjusted models, suggesting a real impact of rurality on all-cause mortality. A shows the unadjusted odds ratios for admission to the hospital after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis for all N3C patients. B shows the unadjusted odds ratios for all-cause mortality at any point after hospitalization for COVID-19 positive patients. C shows the adjusted odds ratios for being admitted to the hospital after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis for all N3C patients. D shows the adjusted odds ratios for all-cause mortality for all-cause mortality at any point after hospitalization for COVID-19 positive patients. Adjusted models include adjustments for gender, race, ethnicity, BMI, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) composite score, rurality, and quarter of diagnosis. The data provider is included as a random effect in all models. Conclusion In N3C, we found that hospitalizations and all-cause mortality were greater among rural populations when compared to urban populations after adjustment for several factors, including age and co-morbidities. This study also identified key demographic and clinical disparities among rural patients that require further investigation. Disclosures Sally L. Hodder, M.D., Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)

10.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259538, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502077

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, West Virginia developed an aggressive SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy which included utilizing pop-up mobile testing in locations anticipated to have near-term increases in SARS-CoV-2 infections. This study describes and compares two methods for predicting near-term SARS-CoV-2 incidence in West Virginia counties. The first method, Rt Only, is solely based on producing forecasts for each county using the daily instantaneous reproductive numbers, Rt. The second method, ML+Rt, is a machine learning approach that uses a Long Short-Term Memory network to predict the near-term number of cases for each county using epidemiological statistics such as Rt, county population information, and time series trends including information on major holidays, as well as leveraging statewide COVID-19 trends across counties and county population size. Both approaches used daily county-level SARS-CoV-2 incidence data provided by the West Virginia Department Health and Human Resources beginning April 2020. The methods are compared on the accuracy of near-term SARS-CoV-2 increases predictions by county over 17 weeks from January 1, 2021- April 30, 2021. Both methods performed well (correlation between forecasted number of cases and the actual number of cases week over week is 0.872 for the ML+Rt method and 0.867 for the Rt Only method) but differ in performance at various time points. Over the 17-week assessment period, the ML+Rt method outperforms the Rt Only method in identifying larger spikes. Results show that both methods perform adequately in both rural and non-rural predictions. Finally, a detailed discussion on practical issues regarding implementing forecasting models for public health action based on Rt is provided, and the potential for further development of machine learning methods that are enhanced by Rt.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Forecasting/methods , Machine Learning , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Models, Statistical , Predictive Value of Tests , Rural Population , West Virginia/epidemiology
11.
Ann Epidemiol ; 59: 44-49, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1163329

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health and racial inequalities impact healthcare access and subsequent coronavirus testing. Limited studies have described the impact of these inequities on rural minorities living in Appalachia. This study investigates factors affecting testing in rural communities. METHODS: PCR testing data were obtained for March through September 2020. Spatial regression analyses were fit at the census tract level. Model outcomes included testing and positivity rate. Covariates included rurality, percent Black population, food insecurity, and area deprivation index (a comprehensive indicator of socioeconomic status). RESULTS: Small clusters in coronavirus testing were detected sporadically, while test positivity clustered in mideastern and southwestern WV. In regression analyses, percent food insecurity (IRR = 3.69×109, [796, 1.92×1016]), rurality (IRR=1.28, [1.12, 1.48]), and percent population Black (IRR = 0.88, [0.84, 0.94]) had substantial effects on coronavirus testing. However, only percent food insecurity (IRR = 5.98 × 104, [3.59, 1.07×109]) and percent Black population (IRR = 0.94, [0.90, 0.97]) displayed substantial effects on the test positivity rate. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight disparities in coronavirus testing among communities with rural minorities. Limited testing in these communities may misrepresent coronavirus incidence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , Food Insecurity , Appalachian Region , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , West Virginia/epidemiology
12.
EClinicalMedicine ; 32: 100741, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1071273

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Suicides by any method, plus 'nonsuicide' fatalities from drug self-intoxication (estimated from selected forensically undetermined and 'accidental' deaths), together represent self-injury mortality (SIM)-fatalities due to mental disorders or distress. SIM is especially important to examine given frequent undercounting of suicides amongst drug overdose deaths. We report suicide and SIM trends in the United States of America (US) during 1999-2018, portray interstate rate trends, and examine spatiotemporal (spacetime) diffusion or spread of the drug self-intoxication component of SIM, with attention to potential for differential suicide misclassification. METHODS: For this state-based, cross-sectional, panel time series, we used de-identified manner and underlying cause-of-death data for the 50 states and District of Columbia (DC) from CDC's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. Procedures comprised joinpoint regression to describe national trends; Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient to assess interstate SIM and suicide rate congruence; and spacetime hierarchical modelling of the 'nonsuicide' SIM component. FINDINGS: The national annual average percentage change over the observation period in the SIM rate was 4.3% (95% CI: 3.3%, 5.4%; p<0.001) versus 1.8% (95% CI: 1.6%, 2.0%; p<0.001) for the suicide rate. By 2017/2018, all states except Nebraska (19.9) posted a SIM rate of at least 21.0 deaths per 100,000 population-the floor of the rate range for the top 5 ranking states in 1999/2000. The rank-order correlation coefficient for SIM and suicide rates was 0.82 (p<0.001) in 1999/2000 versus 0.34 (p = 0.02) by 2017/2018. Seven states in the West posted a ≥ 5.0% reduction in their standardised mortality ratios of 'nonsuicide' drug fatalities, relative to the national ratio, and 6 states from the other 3 major regions a >6.0% increase (p<0.05). INTERPRETATION: Depiction of rising SIM trends across states and major regions unmasks a burgeoning national mental health crisis. Geographic variation is plausibly a partial product of local heterogeneity in toxic drug availability and the quality of medicolegal death investigations. Like COVID-19, the nation will only be able to prevent SIM by responding with collective, comprehensive, systemic approaches. Injury surveillance and prevention, mental health, and societal well-being are poorly served by the continuing segregation of substance use disorders from other mental disorders in clinical medicine and public health practice. FUNDING: This study was partially funded by the National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49CE002093) and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (1UM1DA049412-01; 1R21DA046521-01A1).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL