RESUMO
BackgroundDespite past and ongoing efforts to achieve health equity in the United States, persistent disparities in socioeconomic status along with multilevel racism maintain disparate outcomes and appear to be amplified by COVID-19. ObjectiveMeasure socioeconomic factors and primary language effects on the risk of COVID-19 severity across and within racial/ethnic groups. DesignRetrospective cohort study. SettingHealth records of 12 Midwest hospitals and 60 clinics in the U.S. between March 4, 2020 to August 19, 2020. PatientsPCR+ COVID-19 patients. ExposuresMain exposures included race/ethnicity, area deprivation index (ADI), and primary language. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was COVID-19 severity using hospitalization within 45 days of diagnosis. Logistic and competing-risk regression models (censored at 45 days and accounting for the competing risk of death prior to hospitalization) assessed the effects of neighborhood-level deprivation (using the ADI) and primary language. Within race effects of ADI and primary language were measured using logistic regression. Results5,577 COVID-19 patients were included, 866 (n=15.5%) were hospitalized within 45 days of diagnosis. Hospitalized patients were older (60.9 vs. 40.4 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be male (n=425 [49.1%] vs. 2,049 [43.5%], p=0.002). Of those requiring hospitalization, 43.9% (n=381), 19.9% (n=172), 18.6% (n=161), and 11.8% (n=102) were White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic, respectively. Independent of ADI, minority race/ethnicity was associated with COVID-19 severity; Hispanic patients (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.72-5.30), Asians (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.74-3.29), and Blacks (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15-1.94). ADI was not associated with hospitalization. Non-English speaking (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.51-2.43) significantly increased odds of hospital admission across and within minority groups. ConclusionsMinority populations have increased odds of severe COVID-19 independent of neighborhood deprivation, a commonly suspected driver of disparate outcomes. Non-English-speaking accounts for differences across and within minority populations. These results support the continued concern that racism contributes to disparities during COVID-19 while also highlighting the underappreciated role primary language plays in COVID-19 severity across and within minority groups. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSDoes socioeconomic factors or primary language account for racial disparities in COVID-19 disease severity? FindingsIn this observational study of 5,577 adults, race/ethnicity minorities and non-English as a primary language, independent of neighborhood-level deprivation, are associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. MeaningSocioeconomic factors do not account for racial/ethnic disparities related to COVID-19 severity which supports further investigation into the racism and highlights the need to focus on our non-English speaking populations.
RESUMO
Background: There is limited understanding of heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may facilitate tailored therapy and improve outcomes. Objective: Identify specific clinical phenotypes across COVID-19 patients and compare admission characteristics and outcomes. Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of 1,022 COVID-19 patient admissions from 14 Midwest U.S. hospitals between March 7, 2020 and August 25, 2020. Methods: Ensemble clustering was performed on a set of 33 vitals and labs variables collected within 72 hours of admission. K-means based consensus clustering was used to identify three clinical phenotypes. Principal component analysis was performed on the average covariance matrix of all imputed datasets to visualize clustering and variable relationships. Multinomial regression models were fit to further compare patient comorbidities across phenotype classification. Multivariable models were fit to estimate the association between phenotype and in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes. Main outcomes and measures: Phenotype classification (I, II, III), patient characteristics associated with phenotype assignment, in-hospital complications, and clinical outcomes including ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: The database included 1,022 patients requiring hospital admission with COVID-19 (median age, 62.1 [IQR: 45.9-75.8] years; 481 [48.6%] male, 412 [40.3%] required ICU admission, 437 [46.7%] were white). Three clinical phenotypes were identified (I, II, III); 236 [23.1%] patients had phenotype I, 613 [60%] patients had phenotype II, and 173 [16.9%] patients had phenotype III. When grouping comorbidities by organ system, patients with respiratory comorbidities were most commonly characterized by phenotype III (p=0.002), while patients with hematologic (p<0.001), renal (p<0.001), and cardiac (p<0.001) comorbidities were most commonly characterized by phenotype I. The adjusted odds of respiratory (p<0.001), renal (p<0.001), and metabolic (p<0.001) complications were highest for patients with phenotype I, followed by phenotype II. Patients with phenotype I had a far greater odds of hepatic (p<0.001) and hematological (p=0.02) complications than the other two phenotypes. Phenotypes I and II were associated with 7.30-fold (HR: 7.30, 95% CI: (3.11-17.17), p<0.001) and 2.57-fold (HR: 2.57, 95% CI: (1.10-6.00), p=0.03) increases in the hazard of death, respectively, when compared to phenotype III. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19, three clinical phenotypes were identified. Future research is urgently needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical practice and trial design.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Although acronyms and abbreviations in clinical text are used widely on a daily basis, relatively little research has focused upon word sense disambiguation (WSD) of acronyms and abbreviations in the healthcare domain. Since clinical notes have distinctive characteristics, it is unclear whether techniques effective for acronym and abbreviation WSD from biomedical literature are sufficient. METHODS: The authors discuss feature selection for automated techniques and challenges with WSD of acronyms and abbreviations in the clinical domain. RESULTS: There are significant challenges associated with the informal nature of clinical text, such as typographical errors and incomplete sentences; difficulty with insufficient clinical resources, such as clinical sense inventories; and obstacles with privacy and security for conducting research with clinical text. Although we anticipated that using sophisticated techniques, such as biomedical terminologies, semantic types, part-of-speech, and language modeling, would be needed for feature selection with automated machine learning approaches, we found instead that simple techniques, such as bag-of-words, were quite effective in many cases. Factors, such as majority sense prevalence and the degree of separateness between sense meanings, were also important considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The first lesson is that a comprehensive understanding of the unique characteristics of clinical text is important for automatic acronym and abbreviation WSD. The second lesson learned is that investigators may find that using simple approaches is an effective starting point for these tasks. Finally, similar to other WSD tasks, an understanding of baseline majority sense rates and separateness between senses is important. Further studies and practical solutions are needed to better address these issues.
