Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for inpatients with COVID-19 in the US from September 2020 to February 2021

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe pre-treatment characteristics, treatment patterns, health resource use, and clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States (US) who initiated common treatments for COVID-19. The Optum® COVID-19 electronic health records database was used to identify patients >18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19, who were admitted to an inpatient setting and received treatments of interest for COVID-19 between September 2020 and January 2021. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on index treatment use. Patient demographics, medical history, care setting, medical procedures, subsequent treatment use, patient disposition, clinical improvement, and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Among a total of 26,192 patients identified, the most prevalent treatments initiated were dexamethasone (35.4%) and dexamethasone + remdesivir (14.9%), and dexamethasone was the most common subsequent treatment. At day 14 post-index, <10% of patients received any treatments of interest. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) patient age was 65.6 (15.6) years, and the most prevalent comorbidities included hypertension (44.8%), obesity (35.4%), and diabetes (25.7%). At the end of follow-up, patients had a mean (SD) 8.1 (6.6) inpatient days and 1.4 (4.1) days with ICU care. Oxygen supplementation, non-invasive, or invasive ventilation was required by 4.5%, 3.0%, and 3.1% of patients, respectively. At the end of follow-up, 84.2% of patients had evidence of clinical improvement, 3.1% remained hospitalized, 83.8% were discharged, 4% died in hospital, and 9.1% died after discharge. Although the majority of patients were discharged alive, no treatments appeared to alleviate the inpatient morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. This highlights an unmet need for effective treatment options for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Real-time prediction of patient disposition and the impact of reporter confidence on mid-level triage accuracies: an observational study in Israel

AimThe emergency department (ED) is the first port-of-call for most patients receiving hospital care and as such acts as a gatekeeper to the wards, directing patient flow through the hospital. ED overcrowding is a well-researched field and negatively affects patient outcome, staff well-being and hospital reputation. An accurate, real-time model capable of predicting ED overcrowding has obvious merit in a world becoming increasingly computational, although the complicated dynamics of the department have hindered international efforts to design such a model. Triage nurses’ assessments have been shown to be accurate predictors of patient disposition and could, therefore, be useful input for overcrowding and patient flow models.MethodsIn this study, we assess the prediction capabilities of triage nurses in a level 1 urban hospital in central Israeli. ED settings included both acute and ambulatory wings. Nurses were asked to predict admission or discharge for each patient over a 3-month period as well as exact admission destination. Prediction confidence was used as an optimisation variable.ResultTriage nurses accurately predicted whether the patient would be admitted or discharged in 77% of patients in the acute wing, rising to 88% when their prediction certainty was high. Accuracies were higher still for patients in the ambulatory wing. In particular, negative predictive values for admission were highly accurate at 90%, irrespective of area or certainty levels.ConclusionNurses prediction of disposition should be considered for input for real-time ED models.

Spectrum of COVID-19 clinical characteristics among patients presenting to the primary healthcare in Qatar during the early stages of the pandemic: a retrospective multicentre cross-sectional study

ObjectivesTo describe clinical characteristics and laboratory investigations of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed in primary care in Qatar and to assess predictors of hospitalisation.DesignA retrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and participants3515 confirmed patients with COVID-19 diagnosed in any of the 27 primary healthcare centres in Qatar between 9 April 2020 and 30 June 2020.Main outcome measuresDemographic characteristics, comorbidities, contact tracing, clinical and laboratory data, in addition to patient disposition at the time of diagnosisResultsMean age of patients was 35.5 years (±14.7). 2285 patients (65.0%) were males, 961 patients (27.3%) had a history of concomitant comorbidity and 640 patients (18.2%) were asymptomatic. Adult patients (19–64 years old) were more likely to report symptoms than children or elderly. Fever and cough were the most frequently documented symptoms affecting 1874 patients (46.7%) and 1318 patients (37.5%), respectively. Most patients had normal vital signs at presentation; however, patients who were subsequently hospitalised had higher median temperature than non-hospitalised patients (37.7°C, IQR: 37.0°C–38.4°C, and 37.2°C, IQR: 36.8°C–37.8°C, respectively). Hospitalised patients had significantly higher C reactive protein (CRP) (median CRP: 20 mg/L, IQR: 5.0–61.2 mg/L) than non-hospitalised patients (median CRP: 4.6 mg/L, IQR: 1.7–11.50 mg/L), and lower median absolute lymphocyte count (1.5×103/µL, IQR: 1.1×103/µL–2.1×103/µL, and 1.8×103/µL, IQR: 1.3×103/µL–2.4×103/µL, respectively). Predictors of hospitalisation were increasing age (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.614, 95% CI 1.281 to 5.332 for age between 50 years and 64 years, and AOR: 3.892, 95% CI 1.646 to 9.204 for age ≥65 years), presence of two or more comorbidities (AOR: 2.628; 95% CI 1.802 to 3.832) and presence of symptoms (AOR: 1.982: 95% CI 1.342 to 2.928).ConclusionThe majority of COVID-19 cases diagnosed in primary healthcare in Qatar were symptomatic. Most cases had normal vital signs and laboratory results at presentation. Predictors of hospitalisation were increasing age, the presence of symptoms and having two or more comorbidities.

Outcomes of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in a Community Health System

Objective Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is commonly used in critically ill, hemodynamically unstable patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). This procedure is resource intensive with reported high in-hospital mortality. We evaluated mortality with CRRT in our healthcare system and markers associated with decreased survival. Methods A retrospective cohort study collected data on patients 18 years or older, without prior history of end stage kidney disease (ESKD), who received CRRT in the intensive care units at one of three hospitals in our health system in Columbus, OH from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2019. Data included demographics, presenting diagnosis, comorbidities, laboratory markers, and patient disposition. In-hospital mortality rates and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated. We then compared information between two groups (patients who died during hospitalization and survivors) using univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression models. Results In-hospital mortality was 56.8% (95%CI: 53.4–60.1) among patients who received CRRT. Mean SOFA scores did not differ between survival and mortality groups. The odds for in-patient mortality were increased for patients age ≥60 (OR = 1.74, 95%CI: 1.23-2.44), first bilirubin >2 mg/dL (OR = 1.73, 95%CI: 1.12-2.69), first creatinine < 2 mg/dL (OR = 1.57, 95%CI: 1.04–2.37), first lactate > 2 mmol/L (OR = 2.08, 95%CI: 1.43-3.04). The odds for in-patient mortality were decreased for patients with cardiogenic shock (OR = .32, 95%CI: .17-.58) and hemorrhagic shock (OR = .29, 95%CI: .13-.63). Conclusions We report in-hospital mortality rates of 56.8% with CRRT. Unlike prior studies, higher mean SOFA scores were not predictive of higher in-hospital mortality in patients utilizing CRRT.

452 Preliminary analysis of a real-world study (RWS) of camrelizumab treatment in primary liver cancer (PLC)

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the landscape of PLC management at all evolutionary stages.1 As an anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody, camrelizumab monotherapy and in combination with apatinib, an anti-angiogenetic tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2, chemotherapy or locoregional therapy, have demonstrated their efficacy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).2 3 4 5MethodsThis prospective, open-label, multi-center, observational RWS was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of camrelizumab in treatment of PLC in clinical practice. Eligible patients were histopathologically or cytologically identified HCC or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, who were going to receive camrelizumab treatment, with age ≥18 ages, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score of 0–2 and Child-Pugh score ≤ 9. Patients were treated at clinician discretion. Three hundred patients were planned to enroll, including advanced or peri-operative PLC. The primary endpoint was progress-free survival for advanced PLC, whose efficacy was available to analysis. Efficacy was assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.ResultsFrom March 29, 2020 to June 10, 2021,a total of 147 eligible patients of advanced PLC were enrolled and included in this interim analysis, with 128 (87.1%) men, 130 (94.9%) ECOG PS of 0–1, 139 (94.6%) HCC, 74 (50.4%) Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C, 98 (66.7%) Child-Pugh B, and 72 (49.0%) with extrahepatic metastases, shown in table 1. Of the 147 patients, 45 (30.1%) patients were treated with camrelizumab monotherapy, 79 (53.8%) patients with combination with angiogenesis inhibitors, of which 55 (37.4%) in combination with apatinib, 21 (14.3%) patients with camrelizumab and chemotherapy. Patients, who had at least one efficacy assessment, were included in the efficacy analyses. Up to July 19, 2021, with a median follow time of 6.2 months, 132 patients were available for efficacy analyses. Patient disposition was shown in figure 1. Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 10%/30.8%/35.3% and 75.0%/86.5%/70.6% in camrelizumab monotherapy/combined with apatinib/combined with chemotherapy, respectively. (table 2) The most common camrelizumab-treatment related adverse events (AEs) included reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) (12, 8.2%), ICI-induced pneumonia (2, 1.4%), enterocolitis (2, 1.4%), and nephritis (1, 0.7%), of which all these AEs recovered. Other AEs included increase of transaminase (5, 3.4%) and hypertension (4, 2.7%). All AEs were 1–2 grade and no treatment-related death occurred.Abstract 452 Table 1Baseline characteristicsAbstract 452 Figure 1Patient dispositionAbstract 452 Table 2Confirmed tumor response assessed by investigators per RECIST v1.1ConclusionsCamrelizumab, combined with anti-angiogenetic agents or chemotherapy, or monotherapy, demonstrated good efficacy and safety in treatment of PLC.Trial RegistrationChiCTR2000034264ReferencesLlovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021;7(1):6–28.Qin S, Ren Z, Meng Z, et al. Camrelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(4):571–580.Xu J, Shen J, Gu S, et al. Camrelizumab in Combination with Apatinib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (RESCUE): A Nonrandomized, Open-label, Phase II Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(4):1003–1011.Mei K, Qin S, Chen Z, et al. Camrelizumab in combination with apatinib in second-line or above therapy for advanced primary liver cancer: cohort A report in a multicenter phase Ib/II trial. J Immunother Cancer 2021;9(3).Qin S, Bai Y, Lim HY, et al. Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus doxorubicin as palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Asia. J Clin Oncol 2013;31(28):3501–3508.Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by China registered clinical trial ethics review committee with No.ChiECRCT20200042.

Neurological outcomes after traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest: a systematic review

BackgroundDespite appropriate care, most patients do not survive traumatic cardiac arrest, and many survivors suffer from permanent neurological disability. The prevalence of non-dismal neurological outcomes remains unclear.ObjectivesThe aim of the current review is to summarize and assess the quality of reporting of the neurological outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest survivors.Data sourcesA systematic review of Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ProQuest databases was performed from inception of the database to July 2020.Study eligibility criteriaObservational cohort studies that reported neurological outcomes of patients surviving traumatic cardiac arrest were included.Participants and interventionsPatients who were resuscitated following traumatic cardiac arrest.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsThe quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for observational studies.ResultsFrom 4295 retrieved studies, 40 were included (n=23 644 patients). The survival rate was 9.2% (n=2168 patients). Neurological status was primarily assessed at discharge. Overall, 45.8% of the survivors had good or moderate neurological recovery, 29.0% had severe neurological disability or suffered a vegetative state, and 25.2% had missing neurological outcomes. Seventeen studies qualitatively described neurological outcomes based on patient disposition and 23 studies used standardized outcome scales. 28 studies had a serious risk of bias and 12 had moderate risk of bias.LimitationsThe existing literature is characterized by inadequate outcome reporting and a high risk of bias, which limit our ability to prognosticate in this patient population.Conclusions or implications of key findingsGood and moderate neurological recoveries are frequently reported in patients who survive traumatic cardiac arrest. Prospective studies focused on quality of survivorship in traumatic arrest are urgently needed.Level of evidenceSystematic review, level IV.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198482.

840. Clinical Characteristics of Patients Living with HIV Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background Limited data exists regarding the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH). The purpose of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and HIV versus those without HIV. Methods This was a retrospective, cohort study of adult patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1st to May 30th 2020 at an urban hospital in New York City. Data collected included demographics, past medical history, HIV status, baseline laboratory values, treatment and outcomes such as length of stay, mechanical ventilation, patient disposition at discharge, and in-hospital mortality. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical values and a t-test was used to compare continuous values. Results Out of 983 patients, 6.9% were PLWH and 93.1% were HIV-negative. The average age in both groups was 61 vs. 62 years, respectively. There were more male patients in the PLWH than the non-HIV group (76.8% vs. 58.6%). Majority of PLWH were Black (49.3%). Forty-seven percent of PLWH were mechanically ventilated versus 33.3% of the non-HIV group. The most common comorbidity in both groups was hypertension (82.4% vs. 72.6%). When compared to HIV-negative patients, PLWH had a higher rate of kidney disease (72.1% vs. 53.6%, p=0.0086), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (41.2% vs. 14.5%, p=0.0001), liver disease (45.6% vs. 11.5%, p=0.0001) and current smoking (14.3% vs. 5.8%, p=0.0103). In PLWH, 70.6% of patients were on an integrase-based regimen. Fifty-three percent of PLWH had a CD4 count of &gt; 200 cells/mm3 and 35.3% had an undetectable viral load (&lt; 20 copies/mL). Unadjusted hospital mortality was 51.4% in PLWH and 36.2% in the non-HIV cohort (p=0.0089). The average length of hospital stay was 9.1 days vs. 8.4 days in PLWH versus the non-HIV group (p=0.4493). More patients were discharged to a nursing home in the non-HIV group vs. PLWH (37.8% vs. 14.3%, p=0.0001). Conclusion Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and HIV had a higher in-hospital mortality compared to those without HIV during the first COVID wave in New York City. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Advanced Virtual Support for Operational Forces: A 3-Year Summary

ABSTRACT Introduction The Military Health System mission is to provide medical care throughout the globe to service members and beneficiaries. To achieve this mission in the most austere of locations, telemedical support is an essential force multiplier when robust in-person medical support is not feasible. This led to the development of a telemedical solution initially known as the Virtual Critical Care Consultation service which provided tele-critical care assistance to downrange providers. The VC3 system then expanded to include multiple medical specialties available for consultation. The current version of this telemedical solution is the ADvanced VIrtual Support for OpeRational Forces (ADVISOR) program which is a synchronous and asynchronous telemedicine system that was developed to provide 24/7 remote expert support to military clinicians engaged in casualty care in austere and operational environments. Materials and Methods This manuscript reviews the ADVISOR program data collected from 2017 to 2020 and provides a rough order of magnitude for return on investment. We reviewed data collected by Operational Virtual Health Reports and Operational Virtual Health Evaluations following synchronous consultations. Part of the data reviewed was available patient demographic data, local caregiver information, the purpose of the consult, recommendations made during the consult, the technology used during the consult, and the patient disposition. They also recorded the evacuation plan for the patient and whether a medical evacuation was escalated (e.g. changed from routine to urgent, or from urgent to critical care air transport), downgraded (e.g. urgent to routine), or avoided altogether based on the telephonic consultation. Results There were a total of 156 real-world calls during the evaluation period. The total cost savings for these calls was $1,097,027 (3-year program costs of $909,973 less an average of $87,261+/- $28,633 per call or $2,007,000 total) from downgrading or avoidance of planned evacuations. The unmeasured value associated with ADVISOR consultations should also be commented on. For example, when evacuation plans are escalated based on remote expert consultation, it is probable that the escalation increases patient safety and may avoid medical complications that would result in longer term medical costs to the government. Conclusions Based on the collected information, the financial return on investment has exceeded costs and the system is perceived as being valued added for both local caregivers and remote experts. The system appears to help optimize evacuation planning, specifically by downgrading or eliminating unnecessary evacuations.

Trends, Sociodemographic and Hospital-Level Factors Associated With Palliative Care Utilization Among Multiple Myeloma Patients Using the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2018)

Background: Several factors are reported to be associated with palliative care utilization among patients with various cancers, but literature is lacking on multiple myeloma (MM) specific factors. MM patients have a high symptom burden and early involvement of palliative could increase their quality of life. We examined factors associated with palliative care utilization among MM patients and explored prevalence trends in palliative care utilization among patients with MM. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses were conducted using the National Inpatient Sample data collected between 2016 and 2018. Descriptive analyses were used to explore prevalence trends in palliative care utilization over time. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine sociodemographic and hospital-level factors associated with palliative care utilization in MM patients. Results: Overall prevalence of palliative care utilization in our population was 7.7% with a trend of increasing use of palliative care from 7.3% in 2016 to 8.2% in 2018. MM patients aged 70 years and above had 1.30 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.20-1.42) of receiving palliative care relative to those younger than 70 years. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.94) were less likely to utilize palliative care. Patients on Medicaid (AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.08-1.49), private insurance (AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39) and other insurance types (AOR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.79-2.47) had significantly higher odds of receiving palliative care when compared to those on Medicare. Other factors identified were hospital region, location, patient disposition, admission type, length of stay, and number of comorbidities. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the urgent need for education of hospital physicians on the need for early palliative care involvement in the care of hospitalized MM patients. Messaging interventions such as the delivery of pop-up messages in electronic medical records to serve as reminders for physicians can be explored as a potential way to increase palliative care consultations for patients who need them.

Utilization of anti–factor Xa levels to guide reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors in the emergency department

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Oral factor Xa inhibitors (FXaIs) are increasingly utilized for outpatient anticoagulation therapy; however, laboratory monitoring is not routinely used to assess the safety and efficacy of these agents. We aimed to evaluate the role of chromogenic anti–factor Xa (anti-Xa) assays in the emergency department (ED) in the setting of patients with an acute bleed or requiring emergent procedures. Methods A retrospective review was completed of anti-Xa levels obtained in the ED between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020. Data were collected to describe the clinical setting of anti-Xa level collection, oral FXaIs used before admission, administration of reversal agents, and patient disposition to further characterize the role of anti-Xa levels in the management of rivaroxaban and apixaban reversal. Results Thirty anti-Xa levels were included in the final analysis. The median time from sample collection to anti-Xa assay result was 45.9 minutes (interquartile range, 35.3-54.7 minutes). Eleven patients (37%) received anticoagulation reversal after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anticoagulation reversal agents included either activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCCs) or prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). Anti-Xa levels were collected in 2 patients who had received PCCs before arrival at our ED. Of the patients with anti-Xa levels below 30 ng/mL, none received aPCCs or PCCs after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anti-Xa assays were used to rule out the presence of FXaIs in 3 patients. Conclusion This study illustrates the novel role of anti-Xa levels in managing patients with an emergent need for reversal in the ED. The assay may be used to rule out the presence of oral FXaIs and avoid unnecessary administrations of anticoagulation reversal agents.