Changes in Medicaid enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic across 6 states.

The coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency (PHE) caused extensive job loss and loss of employer-sponsored insurance. State Medicaid programs experienced a related increase in enrollment during the PHE. However, the composition of enrollment and enrollee changes during the pandemic is unknown. This study examined changes in Medicaid enrollment and population characteristics during the PHE. A retrospective study documenting changes in Medicaid new enrollment and disenrollment, and enrollee characteristics between March and October 2020 compared to the same time in 2019 using full-state Medicaid populations from 6 states of a wide geographical region. The primary outcomes were Medicaid enrollment and disenrollment during the PHE. New enrollment included persons enrolled in Medicaid between March and October 2020 who were not enrolled in January or February, 2020. Disenrollment included persons who were enrolled in March of 2020 but not enrolled in October 2020. The study included 8.50 million Medicaid enrollees in 2020 and 8.46 million in 2019. Overall, enrollment increased by 13.0% (1.19 million) in the selected states during the PHE compared to 2019. New enrollment accounted for 24.9% of the relative increase, while the remaining 75.1% was due to disenrollment. A larger proportion of new enrollment in 2020 was among adults aged 27 to 44 (28.3% vs 23.6%), Hispanics (34.3% vs 32.5%) and in the financial needy (44.0% vs 39.0%) category compared to 2019. Disenrollment included a larger proportion of older adults (26.1% vs 8.1%) and non-Hispanics (70.3% vs 66.4%) than in 2019. Medicaid enrollment grew considerably during the PHE, and most enrollment growth was attributed to decreases in disenrollment rather than increases in new enrollment. Our results highlight the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on state health programs and can guide federal and state budgetary planning once the PHE ends.

Compassionate use of Pulmonary Vasodilators in Acute Severe Hypoxic Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There have been over 200 million cases and 4.4 million deaths from COVID-19 worldwide. Despite the lack of robust evidence one potential treatment for COVID-19 associated severe hypoxaemia is inhaled pulmonary vasodilator (IPVD) therapy, using either nitric oxide (iNO) or prostaglandins. We describe the implementation of, and outcomes from, a protocol using IPVDs in a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 associated respiratory failure receiving maximal conventional support. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at a large teaching hospital were analysed for the period 14th March 2020 - 11th February 2021. An IPVD was considered if the PaO2/FiO2 (PF) ratio was less than 13.3kPa despite maximal conventional therapy. Nitric oxide was commenced at 20ppm and titrated to response. If oxygenation improved Iloprost nebulisers were commenced and iNO weaned. The primary outcome was percentage changes in PF ratio and Alveolar-arterial (A-a) gradient. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients received IPVD therapy during the study period. The median PF ratio before IPVD therapy was commenced was 11.33kPa (9.93-12.91). Patients receiving an IPVD had a lower PF ratio (14.37 vs. 16.37kPa, p = 0.002) and higher APACHE-II score (17 vs. 13, p = 0.028) at ICU admission. At 72 hours after initiating an IPVD the median improvement in PF ratio was 33.9% (-4.3-84.1). At 72 hours changes in PF ratio (70.8 vs. -4.1%, p < 0.001) and reduction in A-a gradient (44.7 vs. 14.8%, p < 0.001) differed significantly between survivors (n = 33) and non-survivors (n = 26). CONCLUSIONS: The response to IPVDs in patients with COVID-19 associated acute hypoxic respiratory failure differed significantly between survivors and non-survivors. Both iNO and prostaglandins may offer therapeutic options for patients with severe refractory hypoxaemia due to COVID-19. The use of inhaled prostaglandins, and iNO where feasible, should be studied in adequately powered prospective randomised trials.

Can a quantitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2 PCR predict degree of severity and outcomes in critical care patients with COVID-19?

Real-Time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is the gold standard diagnostic method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Cycle threshold (Ct) is defined as the number of heating and cooling cycles required during the PCR process. Ct-values are inversely proportional to the amount of target nucleic acid in a sample. Our aim, in this retrospective study, was to determine the impact of serial SARS-CoV-2 qPCR Ct-values on: mortality, need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19. Ct values were evaluated during the time points from pre-ICU admission to week 1, week 2 and week 3 during ICU stay; impact on mortality, need for MV and AKI was determined. There was a continuous increment in Ct-values over the ICU stay from 1st week through to 3rd week. Although not significant, lower ICU 1st week Ct-values were associated with Black ethnicity, increased need for MV and mortality. However, patients who had developed AKI at any stage of their illness had significantly lower Ct-values compared to those with normal renal function. When ICU 1st-week Ct-values are subcategorised as <20, 20-30 and >30 the 28-day survival probability was less for patients with Ct-values of <20. This report shows that the impact of Ct-values and outcomes, especially AKI, among patients at different time points prior to and during ICU stay, larger studies are required to confirm out findings.