COVID-19 stressors for Hispanic/Latino patients living with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.

Background and aim: During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, nationwide lockdowns caused disruption in the diets, physical activities, and lifestyles of patients with type 2 diabetes. Previous reports on the possible association between race/ethnicity, COVID-19, and mortality have shown that Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are disproportionately affected by this novel virus. The aim of this study was to explore stressors associated with changes in diabetes self-management behaviors. Our goal was to highlight the health disparities in these vulnerable racial/ethnic minority communities and underscore the need for effective interventions. Methods and participants: Participants were enrolled in part of a larger randomized controlled trial to compare diabetes telehealth management (DTM) with comprehensive outpatient management (COM) in terms of critical patient-centered outcomes among Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a thematic analysis using patient notes collected from two research nurses between March 2020 and March 2021. Two authors read through the transcripts independently to identify overarching themes. Once the themes had been identified, both authors convened to compare themes and ensure that similar themes were identified within the transcripts. Any discrepancies were discussed by the larger study team until a consensus was reached. Results: Six themes emerged, each of which can be categorized as either a source or an outcome of stress. Sources of stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were (1) fear of contracting COVID-19, (2) disruptions from lockdowns, and (3) financial stressors (e.g., loss of income). Outcomes of COVID-19 stressors were (1) reduced diabetes management (e.g., reduced diabetes monitoring and physical activity), (2) suboptimal mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety and depression), and (3) outcomes of financial stressors. Conclusion: The findings indicated that underserved Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes encountered a number of stressors that led to the deterioration of diabetes self-management behaviors during the pandemic.

Risk Factors for Postdischarge Major Thromboembolism and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 with Cardiovascular Comorbidities: Insights from the CORE-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with venous and arterial thromboembolism (VTE and ATE) and all-cause mortality (ACM) in hospitalized patients. High-quality data are needed on postdischarge outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: To analyze outcomes and identify risk factors for ATE, VTE, and ACM in a high-risk subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with baseline cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We investigated postdischarge rates and associated risk factors of ATE, VTE, and ACM in 608 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with coronary artery disease, carotid artery stenosis (CAS), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), or ischemic stroke. RESULTS: Through 90 days postdischarge, outcome rates were: ATE 27.3% (10.2% myocardial infarction, 10.1% ischemic stroke, 13.2% systemic embolism, 12.7% major adverse limb event); VTE 6.9% (4.1% deep vein thrombosis, 3.6% pulmonary embolism); composite of ATE, VTE, or ACM 35.2% (214/608). Multivariate analysis showed significant association between this composite endpoint and age >75 years (odds ratio [OR]: 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-2.94, p = 0.004), PAD (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.80-5.81, p ≤ 0.0001), CAS (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.11-2.75, p = 0.017), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.02-3.35, p = 0.044), previous VTE (OR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.75-5.42, p < 0.0001), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR: 2.93, 95% CI: 1.81-4.75, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 inpatients with cardiovascular disease experience high rates of ATE, VTE, or ACM through 90 days postdischarge. Age >75 years, PAD, CAS, CHF, previous VTE, and ICU admission are independent risk factors.

Mortality of Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients in Traditional versus Expanded Intensive Care Units in New York.

Rationale: During the first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City, the number of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients rapidly surpassed the capacity of traditional intensive care units (ICUs), resulting in health systems utilizing other areas as expanded ICUs to provide critical care. Objectives: To evaluate the mortality of patients admitted to expanded ICUs compared with those admitted to traditional ICUs. Methods: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs at 11 Northwell Health hospitals in the greater New York City area between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality up to 28 days after intubation of COVID-19 patients. Results: Among 1,966 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 1,198 (61%) died within 28 days after intubation, 46 (2%) were transferred to other hospitals outside of the Northwell Health system, 722 (37%) survived in the hospital until 28 days or were discharged after recovery. The risk of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.20; P = 0.28), while hospital occupancy for critically ill patients itself was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although increased hospital occupancy for critically ill patients itself was associated with increased mortality, the risk of 28-day in-hospital mortality of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions: Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Sociodemographic predictors and transportation patterns of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

BACKGROUND: The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sanctioned prevention strategies have included frequent handwashing with soap and water, covering the mouth and nose with a mask when around others, cleaning and disinfecting maintaining a distance of at least 6 feet from others, etc. Although many of these recommendations are based upon observation and past infection control practices, it is important to combine and explore public data sets to identify predictors of infection, morbidity and mortality to develop more finely honed interventions, based on sociodemographic factors. METHOD: Cross-sectional study of both states in the US and counties in NY state. RESULTS: Population density was found to be significantly associated with state-level coronavirus infection and mortality rate (b = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34, 0.64, P < .0001). States that have lower socioeconomic status, lower mean age and denser populations are associated with higher incidence rates. In regard to NY state, counties with a higher percentage of minority residents had higher COVID-19 mortality rates (b = 2.61, 95% CI: 0.36, 4.87, P = 0.023). Larger population cohorts were associated with lower COVID-19 mortality rates after adjusting for other variables in the model (b = -1.39, 95% CI: -2.07, -0.71, P < 0.001). Population density was not significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality rates after adjustment across counties in the NY state. Public ridership was not indicative of cases or mortality across states in the USA; however, it is a significant factor associated with incidence (but not mortality) in NY counties. CONCLUSION: Population density was the only significant predictor of mortality across states in the USA. Lower mean age, lower median household incomes and more densely populated states were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. Population density was not found to be a significant independent variable compared to minority status and socioeconomic factors in the New York epicenter. Meanwhile, public ridership was found to be a significant factor associated with incidence in New York counties.

Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality particularly among hospitalized patients with critical illness and elevated D-dimer (Dd) levels. Conflicting data have yet to elucidate optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing. HEP-COVID (NCT04401293) is a phase 3, multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, pseudo-blinded, active control trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus prophylactic-/intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention of a primary efficacy composite outcome of VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality 30 ± 2 days post-enrollment. Eligible patients have COVID-19 diagnosis by nasal swab or serologic testing, requirement for supplemental oxygen per investigator judgment, and Dd >4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score ≥4. Subjects are randomized to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ)/two times a day (BID) (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 mL/min) or 0.5 mg/kg (CrCl 15-30 mL/min) versus local institutional prophylactic regimens including (1) UFH up to 22,500 IU (international unit) daily (divided BID or three times a day), (2) enoxaparin 30 and 40 mg SQ QD (once daily) or BID, or (3) dalteparin 2,500 IU or 5,000 IU QD. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. Events are adjudicated locally. Based on expected 40% relative risk reduction with treatment-dose compared with prophylactic-dose prophylaxis, 308 subjects will be enrolled (assuming 20% drop-out) to achieve 80% power. Distinguishing design features include an enriched population for the composite endpoint anchored on Dd >4 × ULN, stratification by intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU, and the ability to capture asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis via screening ultrasonography prior to discharge.

Comparative Survival Analysis of Immunomodulatory Therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cytokine Storm.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine storm is a marker of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness severity and increased mortality. Immunomodulatory treatments have been repurposed to improve mortality outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do immunomodulatory therapies improve survival in patients with COVID-19 cytokine storm (CCS)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health records across the Northwell Health system. COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020, were included. CCS was defined by inflammatory markers: ferritin, > 700 ng/mL; C-reactive protein (CRP), > 30 mg/dL; or lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), > 300 U/L. Patients were subdivided into six groups: no immunomodulatory treatment (standard of care) and five groups that received either corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 antibody (tocilizumab), or anti-IL-1 therapy (anakinra) alone or in combination with corticosteroids. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand seven hundred seventy-six patients met the inclusion criteria. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (44%-59%), diabetes (32%-46%), and cardiovascular disease (5%-14%). Patients most frequently met criteria with high LDH (76.2%) alone or in combination, followed by ferritin (63.2%) and CRP (8.4%). More than 80% of patients showed an elevated D-dimer. Patients treated with corticosteroids and tocilizumab combination showed lower mortality compared with patients receiving standard-of-care (SoC) treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < .0001) and with patients treated with corticosteroids alone (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P = .004) or in combination with anakinra (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.81; P = .003). Corticosteroids when administered alone (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.76; P < .0001) or in combination with tocilizumab (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < .0001) or anakinra (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81; P < .0001) improved hospital survival compared with SoC treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of corticosteroids with tocilizumab showed superior survival outcome when compared with SoC treatment as well as treatment with corticosteroids alone or in combination with anakinra. Furthermore, corticosteroid use either alone or in combination with tocilizumab or anakinra was associated with reduced hospital mortality for patients with CCS compared with patients receiving SoC treatment.