Intravenous Opioid Administration During Mechanical Ventilation and Use After Hospital Discharge.

Importance: Guidelines recommend an analgesia-first strategy for sedation during mechanical ventilation, but associations between opioids provided during mechanical ventilation and posthospitalization opioid-related outcomes are unclear. Objective: To evaluate associations between an intravenous opioid dose received during mechanical ventilation and postdischarge opioid-related outcomes in medical (nonsurgical) patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated adults receiving mechanical ventilation lasting 24 hours or more for acute respiratory failure and surviving hospitalization. Participants from 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019, were included. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2020, to October 31, 2023. Exposures: Terciles of median daily intravenous fentanyl equivalents during mechanical ventilation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the first filled opioid prescription in 1 year after discharge. Secondary outcomes included persistent opioid use and opioid-associated complications. Secondary analyses tested for interaction between opioid doses during mechanical ventilation, prior opioid use, and posthospitalization opioid use. Estimates were based on multivariable-adjusted time-to-event analyses, with death as a competing risk, and censored for hospice or palliative care referral, rehospitalization with receipt of opioid, or loss of Kaiser Permanente plan membership. Results: The study included 6746 patients across 21 hospitals (median age, 67 years [IQR, 57-76 years]; 53.0% male). Of the participants, 3114 (46.2%) filled an opioid prescription in the year prior to admission. The median daily fentanyl equivalent during mechanical ventilation was 200 µg (IQR, 40-1000 µg), with terciles of 0 to 67 µg, more than 67 to 700 µg, and more than 700 µg. Compared with patients who did not receive opioids during mechanical ventilation (n = 1013), a higher daily opioid dose was associated with opioid prescriptions in the year after discharge (n = 2942 outcomes; tercile 1: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.17], tercile 2: AHR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.03-1.40], and tercile 3: AHR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). Higher doses of opioids during mechanical ventilation were also associated with persistent opioid use after hospitalization (n = 1410 outcomes; tercile 3 vs no opioids: odds ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.14-1.83]). No interaction was observed between opioid dose during mechanical ventilation, prior opioid use, and posthospitalization opioid use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of patients receiving mechanical ventilation, opioids administered during mechanical ventilation were associated with opioid prescriptions following hospital discharge. Additional studies to evaluate risks and benefits of strategies using lower opioid doses are warranted.

The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING: 11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS: 3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS: Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS: The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION: Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION: Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

Video-Assisted vs Robotic-Assisted Lung Lobectomies for Operating Room Resource Utilization and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: With increased use of robots, there is an inadequate understanding of minimally invasive modalities' time costs. This study evaluates the operative durations of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted lung lobectomies. Objective: To compare resource utilization, specifically operative time, between video-assisted and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients aged 18 to 90 years who underwent minimally invasive (robotic-assisted or video-assisted) lung lobectomy from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, with 90 days' follow-up after surgery. The study included multicenter electronic health record data from 21 hospitals within an integrated health care system in Northern California. Thoracic surgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons. Exposures: Robotic-assisted or video-assisted lung lobectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was operative duration (cut to close) in minutes. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Comparisons between video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. The average treatment effects were estimated with augmented inverse probability treatment weighting (AIPTW). Patient and surgeon covariates were adjusted for and included patient demographics, comorbidities, and case complexity (age, sex, race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonelective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, a validated laboratory derangement score, a validated institutional comorbidity score, a surgeon-designated complexity indicator, and a procedural code count), and a primary surgeon-specific indicator. Results: The study included 1088 patients (median age, 70.1 years [IQR, 63.3-75.8 years]; 704 [64.7%] female), of whom 446 (41.0%) underwent robotic-assisted and 642 (59.0%) underwent video-assisted lobectomy. The median unadjusted operative duration was 172.0 minutes (IQR, 128.0-226.0 minutes). After AIPTW, there was less than a 10% difference in all covariates between groups, and operative duration was a median 20.6 minutes (95% CI, 12.9-28.2 minutes; P < .001) longer for robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lobectomies. There was no difference in adjusted secondary patient outcomes, specifically for length of stay (0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8 days; P = .11) or risk of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.84-1.98; P = .13). The unadjusted 90-day mortality rate (1.3% [n = 14]) was too low for the AIPTW modeling process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was no difference in patient outcomes between modalities, but operative duration was longer in robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lung lobectomy. Given that this elevated operative duration is additive when applied systematically, increased consideration of appropriate patient selection for robotic-assisted lung lobectomy is needed to improve resource utilization.

Predicting stroke risk after sepsis hospitalization with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis is common, but models designed to stratify stroke risk excluded patients with secondary AF. We assessed the predictive validity of CHA2DS2VASc scores among patients with new-onset AF during sepsis and developed a novel stroke prediction model incorporating presepsis and intrasepsis characteristics. METHODS: We included patients ≥40 years old who survived hospitalizations with sepsis and new-onset AF across 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals from January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2017. We calculated the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for CHA2DS2VASc scores to predict stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 1 year after a hospitalization with new-onset AF during sepsis using Fine-Gray models with death as competing risk. We similarly derived and validated a novel model using presepsis and intrasepsis characteristics associated with 1-year stroke/TIA risk. RESULTS: Among 82,748 adults hospitalized with sepsis, 3992 with new-onset AF (median age: 80 years, median CHA2DS2VASc of 4) survived to discharge, among whom 70 (2.1%) experienced stroke or TIA outcome and 1393 (41.0%) died within 1 year of sepsis. The CHA2DS2VASc score was not predictive of stroke risk after sepsis (AUC: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.52). A newly derived model among 2555 (64%) patients in the derivation set and 1437 (36%) in the validation set included 13 variables and produced an AUC of 0.61 (0.49-0.73) in derivation and 0.54 (0.43-0.65) in validation. CONCLUSION: Current models do not accurately stratify risk of stroke following new-onset AF secondary to sepsis. New tools are required to guide anticoagulation decisions following new-onset AF in sepsis.

Evaluation of an outreach programme for patients with COVID-19 in an integrated healthcare delivery system: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems implemented programmes to manage outpatients with COVID-19. The goal was to expedite patients' referral to acute care and prevent overcrowding of medical centres. We sought to evaluate the impact of such a programme, the COVID-19 Home Care Team (CHCT) programme. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California. PARTICIPANTS: Adult members before COVID-19 vaccine availability (1 February 2020-31 January 2021) with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. INTERVENTION: Virtual programme to track and treat patients with 'CHCT programme'. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were (1) COVID-19-related emergency department visit, (2) COVID-19-related hospitalisation and (3) inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral. MEASURES: We estimated the average effect comparing patients who were and were not treated by CHCT. We estimated propensity scores using an ensemble super learner (random forest, XGBoost, generalised additive model and multivariate adaptive regression splines) and augmented inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: There were 98 585 patients with COVID-19. The majority were followed by CHCT (n=80 067, 81.2%). Patients followed by CHCT were older (mean age 43.9 vs 41.6 years, p<0.001) and more comorbid with COmorbidity Point Score, V.2, score ≥65 (1.7% vs 1.1%, p<0.001). Unadjusted analyses showed more COVID-19-related emergency department visits (9.5% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) and hospitalisations (3.9% vs 3.2%, p<0.001) in patients followed by CHCT but lower inpatient death or 30-day hospice referral (0.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.001). After weighting, there were higher rates of COVID-19-related emergency department visits (estimated intervention effect -0.8%, 95% CI -1.4% to -0.3%) and hospitalisation (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.9% to -0.1%) but lower inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.3%) in patients followed by CHCT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CHCT following older patients with higher comorbidity burden, there appeared to be a protective effect. Patients followed by CHCT were more likely to present to acute care and less likely to die inpatient.

Identifying Optimal Acute Care Comparators to Inform the Evaluation of an Advanced Care at Home Pilot Program.

BACKGROUND: Hospital at Home (H@H) programs-which seek to deliver acute care within a patient's home-have become more prevalent over time. However, existing literature exhibits heterogeneity in program structure, evaluation design, and target population size, making it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions to inform future H@H program design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to develop a quality improvement evaluation strategy for a H@H program-the Kaiser Permanente Advanced Care at Home (KPACAH) program in Northern California-leveraging electronic health record data, chart review, and patient surveys to compare KPACAH patients with inpatients in traditional hospital settings. METHODS: The authors developed a 3-step recruitment workflow that used electronic health record filtering tools to generate a daily list of potential comparators, a manual chart review of potentially eligible comparator patients to assess individual clinical and social criteria, and a phone interview with patients to affirm eligibility and interest from potential comparator patients. RESULTS: This workflow successfully identified and enrolled a population of 446 comparator patients in a 5-month period who exhibited similar demographics, reasons for hospitalization, comorbidity burden, and utilization measures to patients enrolled in the KPACAH program. CONCLUSION: These initial findings provide promise for a workflow that can facilitate the identification of similar inpatients hospitalized at traditional brick and mortar facilities to enhance outcomes evaluations for the H@H programs, as well as to identify the potential volume of enrollees as the program expands.

The impact of timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19-related respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: Optimal timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure is unclear. We hypothesized that a strategy of IMV as opposed to continuing high flow oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilation each day after reaching a high FiO2 threshold would be associated with worse in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California's 36 medical centers, we identified patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure who reached ≥80% FiO2 on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation. Exposure was IMV initiation each day after reaching high FiO2 threshold (T0). We developed propensity scores with overlap weighting for receipt of IMV each day adjusting for confounders. We reported relative risk of inpatient death with 95% Confidence Interval. RESULTS: Of 28,035 hospitalizations representing 21,175 patient-days, 5758 patients were included (2793 received and 2965 did not receive IMV). Patients receiving IMV had higher unadjusted mortality (63.6% versus 18.2%, P < 0.0001). On each day after reaching T0 through day >10, the adjusted relative risk was higher for those receiving IMV compared to those not receiving IMV (Relative Risk>1). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of IMV on each day after patients reach high FiO2 threshold was associated with higher inpatient mortality after adjusting for time-varying confounders. Remaining on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation does not appear to be harmful compared to IMV. Prospective evaluation is needed.

Practice Patterns and Outcomes Associated With Anticoagulation Use Following Sepsis Hospitalizations With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns and outcomes associated with the use of oral anticoagulation for arterial thromboembolism prevention following a hospitalization with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis are unclear. METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study of patients ≥40 years of age discharged alive following hospitalization with new-onset AF during sepsis across 21 hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health care delivery system, years 2011 to 2018. Primary outcomes were ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), with a safety outcome of major bleeding events, both within 1 year of discharge alive from sepsis hospitalization. Adjusted risk differences for outcomes between patients who did and did not receive oral anticoagulation within 30 days of discharge were estimated using marginal structural models fitted by inverse probability weighting using Super Learning within a target trial emulation framework. RESULTS: Among 82 748 patients hospitalized with sepsis, 3992 (4.8%) had new-onset AF and survived to hospital discharge; mean age was 78±11 years, 53% were men, and 70% were White. Patients with new-onset AF during sepsis averaged 45±33% of telemetry monitoring entries with AF, and 27% had AF present on the day of hospital discharge. Within 1 year of hospital discharge, 89 (2.2%) patients experienced stroke/TIA, 225 (5.6%) had major bleeding, and 1011 (25%) died. Within 30 days of discharge, 807 (20%) patients filled oral anticoagulation prescriptions, which were associated with higher 1-year adjusted risks of ischemic stroke/TIA (5.69% versus 2.32%; risk difference, 3.37% [95% CI, 0.36-6.38]) and no significant difference in 1-year adjusted risks of major bleeding (6.51% versus 7.10%; risk difference, -0.59% [95% CI, -3.09 to 1.91]). Sensitivity analysis of ischemic stroke-only outcomes showed a risk difference of 0.15% (95% CI, -1.72 to 2.03). CONCLUSIONS: After hospitalization with new-onset AF during sepsis, oral anticoagulation use was uncommon and associated with potentially higher stroke/TIA risk. Further research to inform mechanisms of stroke and TIA and management of new-onset AF after sepsis is needed.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. RESULTS: In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Trends in Outpatient Visits and Hospital and Intensive Care Unit Admissions of Adults With COVID-19 in an Integrated US Health Care System, March 2020 to January 2022.

This cohort study of patients at a single integrated health system examines trends in COVID-19­related treatment location and mortality.

Tobacco Smoking and Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Disease Severity Among Adults in an Integrated Healthcare System in California.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between tobacco smoking status and SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity is highly debated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of >2.4 million adults in a large healthcare system to evaluate whether smoking is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity. AIMS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 2,427,293 adults in KPNC from March 5, 2020 (baseline) to December 31, 2020 (pre-vaccine) included smoking status (current, former, never), socio-demographics, and comorbidities from the electronic health record. SARS-CoV-2 infection (identified by a positive PCR test) and COVID-19 severity (hospitalization, ICU admission or death ≤ 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis) were estimated in time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusting for covariates. Secondary analyses examined COVID-19 severity among patients with COVID-19 using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study, 44,270 patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current smoking was associated with lower adjusted rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.64 95% CI: 0.61-0.67), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR = 0.48 95% CI: 0.40-0.58), ICU admission (aHR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.42-0.87), and death (aHR = 0.52 95% CI: 0.27-0.89) than never-smoking. Former smoking was associated with a lower adjusted rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.96 95% CI: 0.94-0.99) and higher adjusted rates of hospitalization (aHR = 1.10 95% CI: 1.03-1.08) and death (aHR = 1.32 95% CI: 1.11-1.56) than never-smoking. Logistic regression analyses among patients with COVID-19 found lower odds of hospitalization for current versus never-smoking and higher odds of hospitalization and death for former versus never-smoking. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest US study to date on smoking and COVID-19, current and former smoking showed lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than never-smoking, while a history of smoking was associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: In this cohort study of 2.4 million adults, adjusting for socio-demographics and medical comorbidities, current tobacco smoking was associated with a lower risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. A history of smoking was associated with a slightly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a modestly higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. The lower observed COVID-19 risk for current versus never-smoking deserves further investigation. Results support prioritizing individuals with smoking-related comorbidities for vaccine outreach and treatments as they become available.

Development and Validation of an Electronic Health Record-based Score for Triage to Perioperative Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an electronic health record-based risk model for perioperative medicine (POM) triage and compare this model with legacy triage practices that were based on clinician assessment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: POM clinicians seek to address the increasingly complex medical needs of patients prior to scheduled surgery. Identifying which patients might derive the most benefit from evaluation is challenging. METHODS: Elective surgical cases performed within a health system 2014- 2019 (N = 470,727) were used to develop a predictive score, called the Comorbidity Assessment for Surgical Triage (CAST) score, using split validation. CAST incorporates patient and surgical case characteristics to predict the risk of 30-day post-operative morbidity, defined as a composite of mortality and major NSQIP complications. Thresholds of CAST were then selected to define risk groups, which correspond with triage to POM appointments of different durations and modalities. The predictive discrimination CAST score was compared with the surgeon's assessments of patient complexity and the American Society of Anesthesiologists class. RESULTS: The CAST score demonstrated a significantly higher discrimination for predicting post-operative morbidity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.75) than the surgeon's complexity designation (0.63; P < 0.001) or the American Society of Anesthesiologists (0.65; P < 0.001) ( Fig. 1 ). Incorporating the complexity designation in the CAST model did not significantly alter the discrimination (0.75; P = 0.098). Compared with the complexity designation, classification based on CAST score groups resulted a net reclassification improvement index of 10.4% ( P < 0.001) ( Table 1 ). CONCLUSION: A parsimonious electronic health record-based predictive model demonstrates improved performance for identifying pre-surgical patients who are at risk than previously-used assessments for POM triage.

Risk of hospitalization in a sample of COVID-19 patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may have worse coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes. We compared COVID-19 hospitalization risk in patients with and without COPD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥40 years, SARS-CoV-2 positive, and with Kaiser Permanente Northern California membership ≥1 year before COVID-19 diagnosis (electronic health records and claims data). COVID-19-related hospitalization risk was assessed by sequentially adjusted logistic regression models and stratified by disease severity. Secondary outcome was death/hospice referral after COVID-19. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 19,558 COVID-19 patients, 697 (3.6%) had COPD. Compared with patients without COPD, COPD patients were older (median age: 69 vs 53 years); had higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5 vs 0) and more median baseline outpatient (8 vs 4), emergency department (2 vs 1), and inpatient (2 vs 1) encounters. Unadjusted analyses showed increased odds of hospitalization with COPD (odds ratio [OR]: 3.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.40-4.60). After full risk adjustment, there were no differences in odds of hospitalization (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.40) or death/hospice referral (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72-1.27) between patients with and without COPD. Primary/secondary outcomes did not differ by COPD severity, except for higher odds of hospitalization in COPD patients requiring supplemental oxygen versus those without COPD (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.02-3.33). CONCLUSIONS: Except for hospitalization among patients using supplemental oxygen, no differences in odds of hospitalization or death/hospice referral were observed in the COVID-19 patient sample depending on whether they had COPD.

Persistent Steroid Exposure Before Coronavirus Disease 2019 Diagnosis and Risk of Hospitalization in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: It is unclear whether persistent inhaled steroid exposure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hospitalization risk. Objective: Our objective was to examine the association between persistent steroid exposure and COVID-19-related hospitalization risk in COPD patients. Study Design and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health care system (February 2, 2020, to September 30, 2020) for patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and a positive polymerase chain reaction test result for COVID-19. Primary exposure was persistent oral and/or inhaled steroid exposure defined as ≥6 months of prescriptions filled in the year before the COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for the primary outcome of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death/hospice referral. Steroid exposure in the month before a COVID-19 diagnosis was a covariate. Results: Of >4.3 million adults, 697 had COVID-19 and COPD, of whom 270 (38.7%) had COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Overall, 538 (77.2%) were neither exposed to steroids in the month before COVID-19 diagnosis nor persistently exposed; 53 (7.6%) were exposed in the month before but not persistently; 23 (3.3%) were exposed persistently but not in the month before; and 83 (11.9%) were exposed both persistently and in the month before. Adjusting for all confounders including steroid use in the month before, the odds ratio for hospitalization was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.41-1.46) for patients persistently exposed to steroids before a COVID-19 diagnosis. Interpretation: No association was observed between persistent steroid exposure and the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization in COPD patients.

Anakinra or high-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 pneumonia patients who deteriorate on low-dose dexamethasone: an observational study of comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether escalating to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra compared with continuing low-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 whose respiratory function deteriorated while receiving dexamethasone 6 mg daily. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between March 1 to December 31, 2020, of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving anakinra, high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone >10 mg daily), or remaining on low-dose corticosteroids on the day of first respiratory deterioration. RESULTS: We analyzed 6671 patients whose respiratory status deteriorated while receiving dexamethasone 6 mg daily for COVID-19 pneumonia, of whom 6265 stayed on low-dose corticosteroids, 232 were escalated to high-dose corticosteroids, and 174 to anakinra in addition to corticosteroids. The propensity score-adjusted odds of death were higher in the anakinra (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI 1.13-2.72) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.14-2.07) compared with those who continued low-dose corticosteroids on the day of respiratory deterioration. The odds of hospital-acquired infections were also higher in the anakinra (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.28-3.11) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.00-2.04) compared with low-dose corticosteroid group. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support escalating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who deteriorate on low-dose corticosteroids to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra.

The intensity of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An observational, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions. EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME: We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration. CONCLUSION: Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.