Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
Int J Infect Dis ; 120: 88-95, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1804273

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern has led to significant phenotypical changes in transmissibility, virulence, and public health measures. Our study used clinical data to compare characteristics between a Delta variant wave and a pre-Delta variant wave of hospitalized patients. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study defined a wave as an increasing number of COVID-19 hospitalizations, which peaked and later decreased. Data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services were used to identify the waves' primary variant. Wave 1 (August 8, 2020-April 1, 2021) was characterized by heterogeneous variants, whereas Wave 2 (June 26, 2021-October 18, 2021) was predominantly the Delta variant. Descriptive statistics, regression techniques, and machine learning approaches supported the comparisons between waves. RESULTS: From the cohort (N = 1318), Wave 2 patients (n = 665) were more likely to be younger, have fewer comorbidities, require more care in the intensive care unit, and show an inflammatory profile with higher C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, fibrinogen, prothrombin time, activated thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio compared with Wave 1 patients (n = 653). The gradient boosting model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.854 (sensitivity 86.4%; specificity 61.5%; positive predictive value 73.8%; negative predictive value 78.3%). CONCLUSION: Clinical and laboratory characteristics can be used to estimate the COVID-19 variant regardless of genomic testing availability. This finding has implications for variant-driven treatment protocols and further research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e227038, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1787607

ABSTRACT

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Male , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic
3.
J Intern Med ; 292(1): 127-135, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759213

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While COVID-19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge. METHODS: All patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with a cut-off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders. RESULTS: Among 627 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0-57.0] vs. 5 [1.0-31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low-titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high-titer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low-spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319897

ABSTRACT

Background: Real-world clinical data to support the use of casirivimab-imdevimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of casirivimab-imdevimab treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19.Methods: A retrospective cohort of 696 patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab between December 4, 2020 and April 9, 2021 was compared to a propensity-matched control of 696 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Primary outcome was rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28 after infusion.Findings: The median age of the antibody-treated cohort was 63 years (interquartile range, 52-71);45·5% were ≥65 years old;51·4% were female. High-risk characteristics were hypertension (52·4%), body mass index ≥35 (31·0%), diabetes mellitus (24·6%), chronic lung disease (22·1%), chronic renal disease (11·4%), congestive heart failure (6·6%), and compromised immune function (6·7%). Compared to the propensity-matched untreated control, patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization rates at day 14 (1·2% vs 3·4%;Odds Ratio [OR], 0·26;95% confidence interval (CI): 0·11-0·64), day 21 (1·2% vs 4·2%;OR, 0·22;95% CI: 0·09-0·52), and day 28 (1·3% vs 4·9%;OR, 0·21;95% CI: 0·09-0·48). Rates of intensive care unit admission and mortality at days 14, 21 and 28 were similarly low for antibody-treated and untreated groups.Interpretation:Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was associated with a significantly lower rate of hospitalization.Funding Information: This work was funded by an intramural grant from Mayo Clinic to RRR.Declaration of Interests: CP, AP, AV, and PL are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company. JCO is supported by grants from nference, and is a paid consultant for Elsevier, Inc. and Bates College. ADB is supported by grants from NIAID (grants AI110173 and AI120698) Amfar (#109593) and Mayo Clinic (HH Shieck Khalifa Bib Zayed Al-Nahyan Named Professorship of Infectious Diseases). ADB is a paid consultant for Abbvie and Flambeau Diagnostics, is a paid member of the DSMB for Corvus Pharmaceuticals and Equilium, owns equity for scientific advisory work in Zentalis and Nference, and is founder and President of Splissen therapeutics. RRR is supported by research grants from Regeneron, Roche, Gilead and the Mayo Clinic, and is a member of DSMB for Novartis. All other have nothing to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this study. Informed consent was waived and patients without research authorization were excluded.

5.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327377

ABSTRACT

Background Case reports of patients infected with COVID-19 and influenza virus (“flurona”) have raised questions around the prevalence and clinical significance of these reports. Methods Epidemiological data from the HHS Protect Public Data Hub was analyzed to show trends in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza co-infection-related hospitalizations in the United States in relation to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza strain data from NCBI Virus and FluView . In addition, we retrospectively analyzed all cases of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise from January 2020 to January 2022 and identified cases of influenza co-infections within two weeks of PCR-positive diagnosis date. Using a cohort from the Mayo Clinic with joint PCR testing data, we estimated the expected number of co-infection cases given the background prevalences of COVID-19 and influenza during the Wuhan (Original), Alpha, Delta, and Omicron waves of the pandemic. Findings Considering data from all states of the United States using HHS Protect Public Data Hub, hospitalizations due to influenza co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 were seen to be highest in January 2022 compared to all previous months during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among 171,639 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases analyzed at Mayo Clinic between January 2020 and January 2022, only 73 cases of influenza co-infection were observed. Identified coinfected patients were relatively young (mean age: 28.4 years), predominantly male, and had few comorbidities. During the Delta era (June 16, 2021 to December 13, 2021), there were 9 lab-confirmed co-infection cases observed compared to 13.9 expected cases (95% CI: [12.7, 15.2]), and during the Omicron era (December 14, 2021 to January 17, 2022), there were 54 lab-confirmed co-infection cases compared to 80.9 expected cases (95% CI: [76.6, 85.1]). Conclusions Reported co-infections of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are rare. These co-infections have occurred throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and their prevalence can be explained by background rates of COVID-19 and influenza infection. Preliminary assessment of longitudinal EHR data suggests that most co-infections so far have been observed among relatively young and healthy patients. Further analysis is needed to assess the outcomes of “flurona” among subpopulations with risk factors for severe COVID-19 such as older age, obesity, and immunocompromised status. Significance Statement Reports of COVID-19 and influenza co-infections (“flurona”) have raised concern in recent months as both COVID-19 and influenza cases have increased to significant levels in the US. Here, we analyze trends in co-infection cases over the course of the pandemic to show that these co-infection cases are expected given the background prevalences of COVID-19 and influenza independently. In addition, from an initial analysis of these co-infection cases which have been observed at the Mayo Clinic, we find that these co-infection cases are extremely rare and have mostly been observed in relatively young, healthy patients.

6.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 97(2): 327-332, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665267

ABSTRACT

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Retrospective Studies , United States/epidemiology
7.
Med (N Y) ; 3(1): 28-41.e8, 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559964

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines. METHODS: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing. FINDINGS: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VEmRNA-1273: 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VEBNT162b2: 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VEmRNA-1273: 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VEBNT162b2: 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VEmRNA-1273: 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VEBNT162b2: 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions. FUNDING: This study was funded by nference.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493775

ABSTRACT

We characterized COVID-19 breakthrough cases admitted to a single center in Florida. With the emergence of delta variant, an increased number of hospitalizations was seen due to breakthrough infections. These patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities. Preventive measures should be maintained even after vaccination.

9.
J Clin Invest ; 131(19)2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448085

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/mortality , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Survival Rate
10.
EClinicalMedicine ; 40: 101102, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377701

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Real-world clinical data to support the use of casirivimab-imdevimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of casirivimab-imdevimab treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 696 patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab between December 4, 2020 and April 9, 2021 was compared to a propensity-matched control of 696 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Primary outcome was rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28 after infusion. FINDINGS: The median age of the antibody-treated cohort was 63 years (interquartile range, 52-71); 45·5% were ≥65 years old; 51.4% were female. High-risk characteristics were hypertension (52.4%), body mass index ≥35 (31.0%), diabetes mellitus (24.6%), chronic lung disease (22.1%), chronic renal disease (11.4%), congestive heart failure (6.6%), and compromised immune function (6.7%). Compared to the propensity-matched untreated control, patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization rates at day 14 (1.3% vs 3.3%; Absolute Difference: 2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-3.7%), day 21 (1.3% vs 4.2%; Absolute Difference: 2.9%; 95% CI: 1.2-4.7%), and day 28 (1.6% vs 4.8%; Absolute Difference: 3.2%; 95% CI: 1.4-5.1%). Rates of intensive care unit admission and mortality at days 14, 21 and 28 were similarly low for antibody-treated and untreated groups. INTERPRETATION: Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was associated with a significantly lower rate of hospitalization. FUNDING: Mayo Clinic.

11.
NPJ Digit Med ; 4(1): 123, 2021 Aug 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356587

ABSTRACT

Established technology, operational infrastructure, and nursing resources were leveraged to develop a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19. The program included two care-delivery models with different monitoring capabilities supporting variable levels of patient risk for severe illness. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of a multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness. We report an evaluation of 7074 patients served by the program across 41 US states. Among all patients, the RPM technology engagement rate was 78.9%. Rates of emergency department visit and hospitalization within 30 days of enrollment were 11.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4%. A multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness is feasible, safe, and associated with a low mortality rate. Further research and expansion of RPM programs for ambulatory management of other acute illnesses are warranted.

13.
J Infect Dis ; 224(8): 1278-1286, 2021 10 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1316825

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9-2.2] and 1.6 [.8-2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Drug Combinations , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multimorbidity , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
14.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 17(9): e1293-e1302, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262530

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Monitoring, Physiologic , Neoplasms/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
16.
SN Compr Clin Med ; 3(1): 247-254, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1038028

ABSTRACT

Because most cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are not severe, understanding the epidemiology of mild cases has important clinical implications. We aimed to describe the symptom profile and associated outcomes in a virtual outpatient COVID-19 clinic. We conducted a prospective cohort study from March through June 2020. We included 106 patients with positive results for SARS-CoV-2, followed up until they had 2 sequential negative tests. Exploratory regression analyses identified potential prognostic symptoms or risk factors associated with outcomes, including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and time to resolution of viral shedding. The mean (range) patient age was 51 (18-86) years, 50% were men, and 36.5% had at least 1 risk factor, most commonly asthma (16%) and diabetes (10%). Most patients (98.1%) had symptoms-cough (80.4%), fatigue (67.6%), fever (66.0%), headache (49.0%), and ageusia (46.9%). Nine (8.5%) patients were admitted to the ED, 5 (4.7%) were hospitalized, and none died. Asthma (RR = 7.13, P = .001) and being immunocompromised (RR = 3.44, P = .03) were associated with higher risks of adverse outcomes. Asthma (HR = 0.56, P = .04) and early symptoms of ageusia (HR= 0.50, P = .01) or myalgia (HR = 0.63, P = .04) were associated with significantly longer duration of viral shedding. In contrast to reports about severe cases of COVID-19, we found a higher incidence of sinus symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, and myalgia and a lower incidence of fever, anosmia, and ageusia among our mild/moderate cases. Asthma and immunocompromised status were associated with adverse outcomes, and asthma and early symptoms of ageusia or myalgia with significantly longer duration of viral shedding.

17.
Telemed J E Health ; 26(11): 1419-1423, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-591354

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is taking a massive toll on health care systems globally. We developed the COVID-19 virtual clinic (CVC) in conjunction with drive through testing to cope with this situation. There are two arms of the CVC: (1) a screening arm and (2) positive patient arm. Screening is performed over the phone based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guideline. Positive patients are followed at regular intervals by video appointments where concerns can be addressed by a provider while also tracking symptom progression. We enrolled 63 positive patients out of 1,153 screened for COVID-19 as of this writing. The CVC continues to address patients' concerns and symptoms in an effort to minimize emergency department and hospital patient volumes, as incidence increases. Drive through testing in conjunction with a virtual clinic allows us to provide high-quality care in an anxious time without consuming excessive personal protective equipment or unnecessarily exposing health care workers. This article could serve as a model to guide other practices to cope with this and future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Telemedicine/organization & administration , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL