Managed care COVID-19 outcomes in a population health program.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) factors linked to hospitalizations among managed care patients (MCPs), (2) outcome improvement with use of outpatient off-label treatment, and (3) outcome comparison between MCPs and a mirror group. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing MCPs with an age- and gender-matched mirror group in Florida from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. METHODS: A total of 38,193 MCPs in a Florida primary care group were monitored for COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization, and mortality. The highest-risk patients were managed by the medical group's COVID-19 Task Force. As part of a population health program, the COVID-19 Task Force contacted patients, conducted medical encounters, and tracked data including comorbidities and medical outcomes. The MCPs enrolled in the medical group were compared with a mirror group from the state of Florida. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age among the MCPs was 67.9 (15.2) years, and 60% were female. Older age and hypertension were the most important factors in predicting COVID-19. Obesity, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and congestive heart failure (CHF) were linked to higher rates of hospitalizations. Patients prescribed off-label outpatient medications had 73% lower likelihood of hospitalization (P < .05). Compared with the mirror group, MCPs had 60% lower COVID-19 mortality (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: MCPs have risk factors similar to the general population for COVID-19 incidence and progression, including older age, hypertension, obesity, CHF, and CKD. Outpatient treatment with off-label medicines decreased hospitalizations. A comprehensive population health program decreased COVID-19 mortality.

Current Understanding of COVID-19 Clinical Course and Investigational Treatments.

Importance: Currently, there is no unified framework linking disease progression to established viral levels, clinical tests, inflammatory markers, and investigational treatment options. Objective: It may take many weeks or months to establish a standard treatment approach. Given the growing morbidity and mortality with respect to COVID-19, this systemic review presents a treatment approach based on a thorough review of scholarly articles and clinical reports. Our focus is on staged progression, clinical algorithms, and individualized treatment. Evidence Review: We followed the protocol for a quality review article proposed by Heyn et al. (1). A literature search was conducted to find all relevant studies related to COVID-19. The search was conducted between April 1, 2020, and April 13, 2020, using the following electronic databases: PubMed (1809 to present); Google Scholar (1900 to present); MEDLINE (1946 to present), CINAHL (1937 to present); and Embase (1980 to present). The keywords used included COVID-19, 2019-nCov, SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, with terms such as efficacy, seroconversion, microbiology, pathophysiology, viral levels, inflammation, survivability, and treatment and pharmacology. No language restriction was placed on the search. Reference lists were manually scanned for additional studies. Findings: Of the articles found in the literature search, 70 were selected for inclusion in this study (67 cited in the body of the manuscript and 3 additional unique references in the Figures). The articles represent work from China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Rwanda, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. Most of the articles were cohort or case studies, but we also drew upon other information, including guidelines from hospitals and clinics instructing their staff on procedures to follow. In addition, we based some decisions on data collected by organizations such as the CDC, FDA, IHME, IDSA, and Worldometer. None of the case studies or cohort studies used a large number of participants. The largest group of participants numbered <500 and some case studies had fewer than 30 patients. However, the review of the literature revealed the need for individualized treatment protocols due to the variability of patient clinical presentation and survivability. A number of factors appear to influence mortality: the stage at which the patient first presented for care, pre-existing health conditions, age, and the viral load the patient carried. Conclusion and Relevance: COVID-19 can be divided into three distinct stages, beginning at the time of infection (Stage I), sometimes progressing to pulmonary involvement (Stage II, with or without hypoxemia), and less frequently to systemic inflammation (Stage III). In addition to modeling the stages of disease progression along with diagnostic testing, we have also created a treatment algorithm that considers age, comorbidities, clinical presentation, and disease progression to suggest drug classes or treatment modalities. This paper presents the first evidence-based recommendations for individualized treatment for COVID-19.

Risk of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized patients receiving metronidazole for a non-C difficile infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antibiotics often are given to prevent infections but also constitute a risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Metronidazole is an effective treatment for CDI. We investigated whether prophylactic administration of metronidazole to patients before they receive other antibiotics reduces the risk of CDI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of data collected from 12,026 high-risk patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Foundation Hospitals from 2008 through 2012. High-risk patients were defined as age 55 or older who received a broad-spectrum antibiotic (piperacillin-tazobactam or ciprofloxacin) and a gastric acid suppressant (a proton pump inhibitor or a histamine-2 receptor blocker) during their hospitalization. Development of CDI was compared between patients who received metronidazole for non-CDI indications before broad-spectrum antibiotics (n = 811) and those who did not (n = 11,215). Logistic regression was used to control for patient demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: The rate of CDI was 1.4% (n = 11) among the patients who received metronidazole for non-CDI indications and 6.5% (n = 728) among those who did not. This was observed to be an 80% reduction in CDI among patients who received metronidazole (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.38; P < .001), adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a retrospective analysis, metronidazole might be used to prevent CDI in certain high-risk patients. Prospective controlled trials are necessary before making further recommendations.

Predictors of 30-day readmission in patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Approximately one-third of patients admitted for HF are readmitted within 3 months; however, there are few markers that can identify those at highest risk for readmission. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and laboratory markers associated with hospital readmission in decompensated HF. HYPOTHESIS: Clinical and laboratory markers are associated with readmission rates in decompensated HF. METHODS: Clinical and laboratory data from 412 patients admitted with HF were analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression analysis to find predictors of HF readmission by 30 days. RESULTS: HF readmission rates at 30 days were lowest in those with at least 2 of the following discharge criteria: net fluid reduction >1.3 L (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, P = 0.019), serum sodium level >135 (OR: 0.46, P = 0.034), and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide level reduction >23% (OR: 0.11, P = 0.048). In multivariate analysis, those patients meeting ≥2 criteria had a very low risk of 30-day readmission (OR: 0.10, 95% confidence interval: 0.01-0.68, P = 0.019) compared to patients who failed to meet 2 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: A negative fluid balance, normal serum sodium, and net reduction in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide level during hospitalization may be important indices to target to help reduce the likelihood of HF readmission within 30 days.

African american race and prevalence of atrial fibrillation:a meta-analysis.

Background. It has been observed that African American race is associated with a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to Caucasian race. To better quantify the association between African American race and AF, we performed a meta-analysis of published studies among different patient populations which reported the presence of AF by race. Methods. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases between January 1999 and January 2011. The search was limited to published studies in English conducted in the United States, which clearly defined the presence of AF in African American and Caucasian subjects. A meta-analysis was performed with prevalence of AF as the primary endpoint. Results. In total, 10 studies involving 1,031,351 subjects were included. According to a random effects analysis, African American race was associated with a protective effect with regard to AF as compared to Caucasian race (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59, P < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, African American race was significantly associated with a lower prevalence of AF in the general population, those hospitalized or greater than 60 years old, postcoronary artery bypass surgery patients, and subjects with heart failure. Conclusions. In a broad sweep of subjects in the general population and hospitalized patients, the prevalence of AF in African Americans is consistently lower than in Caucasians.