The long tail of COVID and the tale of long COVID: Diagnostic construction and the management of ignorance.

We bring together insights from the sociology of diagnosis and the sociology of ignorance to examine the early diagnostic unfolding of 'Long COVID' (LC). Originally described by patient activists, researchers set out to ponder its unwieldy clinical boundaries. Using a scoping review method in tandem with qualitative content analytic techniques, we analyse medicine's initial struggles to construct a LC diagnosis. Paying attention to the dynamics of ignorance, we highlight three consequential conceptual manoeuvres in the early classifications of LC: causal agnosticism concerning the relationship between COVID-19 and LC, evasion of lumping LC with similar conditions; and the predictable splitting off of medically explainable cases from the LC designation. These manoeuvres are not maleficent, inept or unreasonable. They are practical but impactful responses to the classificatory dilemmas present in the construction of diagnoses amidst ignorance. Although there are unique aspects to LC, we suggest that its early fate is nevertheless emblematic of medicine's diagnostic standardisation processes more generally. To varying degrees, diagnoses are ignorance management strategies; they create a pathway through the uncertainty at the core of disease realities. However, while diagnoses circumscribe some types of ignorance, they produce others through the creation of blind spots and paths not taken.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With Prescription of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration System.

Importance: Novel therapies for type 2 diabetes can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease progression. The equitability of these agents' prescription across racial and ethnic groups has not been well-evaluated. Objective: To investigate differences in the prescription of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) among adult patients with type 2 diabetes by racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the US Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse. The sample included adult patients with type 2 diabetes and at least 2 primary care clinic visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Exposures: Self-identified race and self-identified ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalent SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA prescription, defined as any active prescription during the study period. Results: Among 1 197 914 patients (mean age, 68 years; 96% men; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander, 20% Black or African American, 71% White, and 7% of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity), 10.7% and 7.7% were prescribed an SGLT2i or a GLP-1 RA, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 8.4% among American Indian or Alaska Native patients; 11.8% and 8% among Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander patients; 8.8% and 6.1% among Black or African American patients; and 11.3% and 8.2% among White patients, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 7.1% among Hispanic or Latino patients and 10.7% and 7.8% among non-Hispanic or Latino patients. After accounting for patient- and system-level factors, all racial groups had significantly lower odds of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA prescription compared with White patients. Black patients had the lowest odds of prescription compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.71-0.74] for SGLT2i and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.63-0.66] for GLP-1 RA). Patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had significantly lower odds of prescription (0.90 [95% CI, 0.88-0.93] for SGLT2i and 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91] for GLP-1 RA) compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration system during 2019 and 2020, prescription rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA medications were low, and individuals of several different racial groups and those of Hispanic ethnicity had statistically significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions for these medications compared with individuals of White race and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these differences in rates of prescribing and the potential relationship with differences in clinical outcomes.

Treatment provider perceptions of take-home methadone regulation before and during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies. METHODS: Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent. CONCLUSION: Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services.

The association between opioids, environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators and COVID-19 mortality rates in the United States: an ecological study at the county level.

BACKGROUND: The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world presents an unprecedented challenge to public health inequities. People who use opioids may be a vulnerable group disproportionately impacted by the current pandemic, however, the limited prior research in this area makes it unclear whether COVID-19 and opioid use outcomes may be related, and whether other environmental and socioeconomic factors might play a role in explaining COVID-19 mortality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between opioid-related mortality and COVID-19 mortality across U.S. counties. METHODS: Data from 3142 counties across the U.S. were used to model the cumulative count of deaths due to COVID-19 up to June 2, 2020. A multivariable negative-binomial regression model was employed to evaluate the adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate ratios (aMRR). RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, counties with higher rates of opioid-related mortality per 100,000 persons were found to be significantly associated with higher rates of COVID-19 mortality (aMRR: 1.0134; 95% CI [1.0054, 1.0214]; P = 0.001). Counties with higher average daily Particulate Matter (PM2.5) exposure also saw significantly higher rates of COVID-19 mortality. Analyses revealed rural counties, counties with higher percentages of non-Hispanic whites, and counties with increased average maximum temperatures are significantly associated with lower mortality rates from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates need for public health efforts in hard hit COVID-19 regions to also focus prevention efforts on overdose risk among people who use opioids. Future studies using individual-level data are needed to allow for detailed inferences.

Opioid use disorder and health service utilization among COVID-19 patients in the US: A nationwide cohort from the Cerner Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Both opioid use and COVID-19 affect respiratory and pulmonary health, potentially putting individuals with opioid use disorders (OUD) at risk for complications from COVID-19. We examine the relationship between OUD and subsequent hospitalization, length of stay, risk for invasive ventilator dependence (IVD), and COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: Multivariable logistic and exponential regression models using electronic health records data from the Cerner COVID-19 De-Identified Data Cohort from January through June 2020. FINDINGS: Out of 52,312 patients with COVID-19, 1.9% (n=1,013) had an OUD. COVID-19 patients with an OUD had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=3.44, 95% CI=2.81-4.21), maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.16, 95% CI=1.09-1.22), and odds of IVD (aOR=1.26, 95% CI=1.06-1.49) than patients without an OUD, but did not differ with respect to COVID-19 mortality. However, OUD patients under age 45 exhibited greater COVID-19 mortality (aOR=3.23, 95% CI=1.59-6.56) compared to patients under age 45 without an OUD. OUD patients using opioid agonist treatment (OAT) exhibited higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=5.14, 95% CI=2.75-10.60) and higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.22, 95% CI=1.01-1.48) than patients without OUDs; however, risk for IVD and COVID-19 mortality did not differ. OUD patients using naltrexone had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=32.19, 95% CI=4.29-4,119.83), higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.59, 95% CI=1.06-2.38), and higher odds of IVD (aOR=3.15, 95% CI=1.04-9.51) than patients without OUDs, but mortality did not differ. OUD patients who did not use treatment medication had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=4.05, 95% CI=3.32-4.98), higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.14, 95% CI=1.08-1.21), and higher odds of IVD (aOR=1.25, 95% CI=1.04-1.50) and COVID-19 mortality (aOR=1.31, 95% CI=1.07-1.61) than patients without OUDs. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests people with OUD and COVID-19 often require higher levels of care, and OUD patients who are younger or not using medication treatment for OUDs are particularly vulnerable to death due to COVID-19.