Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Eur Respir J ; 2021 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538054


INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS. METHODS: We included patients admitted to Veterans Affairs hospitals between June 7, 2020-May 31, 2021 within 14-days after SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514/9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472/5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47 to 2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.36). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS.

Am J Prev Med ; 61(5 Suppl 1): S108-S117, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453985


INTRODUCTION: Regional partnerships between public health organizations and telehealth programs have the potential to expand access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in rural and small urban areas. However, little is known about the best practices for such partnerships. Iowa TelePrEP, a regional public health‒partnered telehealth model created by the Iowa Department of Public Health and the University of Iowa, expanded statewide between 2017 and 2019. This qualitative evaluation assessed the barriers and facilitators to statewide expansion and the lessons learned. METHODS: Key informants from public health partners across Iowa participated in a focus group and interviews between May 2019 and November 2020. Public health partners included local health departments and disease intervention specialist/partner services programs. Qualitative data were transcribed and thematically coded. Program documents and routinely collected reporting data were reviewed to provide the context for qualitative findings. Data were analyzed in 2020. RESULTS: TelePrEP expanded in 4 phases through partnerships with 12 public health partners. Public health partners referred 708 clients with pre-exposure prophylaxis indications to telenavigation; of these, 258 were navigated to TelePrEP, and 167 initiated pre-exposure prophylaxis. The facilitators of expansion included early public health partner engagement, model acceptability and inclusion of a navigator, and adaptability to local public health partner settings. The barriers included the need to adapt communication and processes to varying public health partners, difficulty in engaging underserved populations, the COVID-19 pandemic, and perceived gaps in understanding client outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Partnerships between regional telehealth programs and local health departments can expand to the state level and increase the capacity to implement pre-exposure prophylaxis in rural and small urban settings. Partnerships should consider how to balance program adaptability to local public health partners with standardization and scalability.

COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Humans , Iowa , Pandemics , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(7): e2114741, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1310419


Importance: Randomized clinical trials have yielded conflicting results about the effects of remdesivir therapy on survival and length of hospital stay among people with COVID-19. Objective: To examine associations between remdesivir treatment and survival and length of hospital stay among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in routine care settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to identify adult patients in 123 VHA hospitals who had a first hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from May 1 to October 8, 2020. Propensity score matching of patients initiating remdesivir treatment to control patients who had not initiated remdesivir treatment by the same hospital day was used to create the analytic cohort. Exposures: Remdesivir treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death within 30 days of remdesivir treatment initiation (or corresponding hospital day for matched control individuals) and time to hospital discharge with time to death as a competing event. Associations between remdesivir treatment and these outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression in the matched cohort. Results: The initial cohort included 5898 patients admitted to 123 hospitals, 2374 (40.3%) of whom received remdesivir treatment (2238 men [94.3%]; mean [SD] age, 67.8 [12.8] years) and 3524 (59.7%) of whom never received remdesivir treatment (3302 men [93.7%]; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [14.4] years). After propensity score matching, the analysis included 1172 remdesivir recipients and 1172 controls, for a final matched cohort of 2344 individuals. Remdesivir recipients and matched controls were similar with regard to age (mean [SD], 66.6 [14.2] years vs 67.5 [14.1] years), sex (1101 men [93.9%] vs 1101 men [93.9%]), dexamethasone use (559 [47.7%] vs 559 [47.7%]), admission to the intensive care unit (242 [20.7%] vs 234 [19.1%]), and mechanical ventilation use (69 [5.9%] vs 45 [3.8%]). Standardized differences were less than 10% for all measures. Remdesivir treatment was not associated with 30-day mortality (143 remdesivir recipients [12.2%] vs 124 controls [10.6%]; log rank P = .26; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.36). Results were similar for people receiving vs not receiving dexamethasone at remdesivir initiation (dexamethasone recipients: adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; nonrecipients: adjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.84-1.69). Remdesivir recipients had a longer median time to hospital discharge compared with matched controls (6 days [interquartile range, 4-12 days] vs 3 days [interquartile range, 1-7 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US veterans hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays. Routine use of remdesivir may be associated with increased use of hospital beds while not being associated with improvements in survival.

Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Length of Stay , Patient Discharge , Veterans , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , United States , Veterans Health Services