Development and Validation of a Multivariable Risk Prediction Model for COVID-19 Mortality in the Southern United States

ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Southern United States and development as well as validation of a mortality risk prediction model.Patients and MethodsSouthern Louisiana was an early hotspot during the pandemic, which provided a large collection of clinical data on inpatients with COVID-19. We designed a risk stratification model to assess the mortality risk for patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. Data from 1673 consecutive patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was used to create an 11-factor mortality risk model based on baseline comorbidity, organ injury, and laboratory results. The risk model was validated using a subsequent cohort of 2067 consecutive hospitalized patients admitted between June 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.ResultsThe resultant model has an area under the curve of 0.783 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.81), with an optimal sensitivity of 0.74 and specificity of 0.69 for predicting mortality. Validation of this model in a subsequent cohort of 2067 consecutively hospitalized patients yielded comparable prognostic performance.ConclusionWe have developed an easy-to-use, robust model for systematically evaluating patients presenting to acute care settings with COVID-19 infection.     

An epidemiological evaluation of COVID-19 in La paz,Bolivia

IntroductionThe Plurinational State of Bolivia (Bolivia) has experienced four major waves of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so far. Although the ministry of health has been tracking morbidity and mortality through each wave, epidemiology of COVID-19 in Bolivia is not well defined, despite a need for more accurate measurement of the number of cases and deaths to allow for forecasting of the pandemic. This study examined prevalence of COVID-19 at community level, determinants of its occurrence and vaccine effectiveness.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in La Paz city on 2,775 individuals between March 2020 and February 2022. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data on COVID-19 morbidity, mortality and vaccination status.ResultsOf the 2,775 participants, 1,586 (57.1%) were infected with COVID-19, and 187 (6.7%) were suspected cases. The mortality rate was 2.9%. Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson, Gamaleya, Pfizer-BioNtech, Moderna and AstraZeneka vaccines are in use, and all vaccines have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk of onset. Risk for mortality was significantly lower in the vaccinated group with an odds ratio of 0.037 (95％ confidential interval: 0.01–0.10, p-value: <0.001).ConclusionsActual prevalence of COVID-19 in La Paz (the prevalence rate: 63.8%, including suspected case) was higher than that reported by the Ministry of Health and Sports in Bolivia (7.5%). In addition, vaccination has contributed significantly to the control of the COVID-19 epidemic in Bolivia. We believe that our report will be useful for COVID-19 prevention strategies in Bolivia for the future.     

Timing of REGEN-COV administration and progression to severe COVID-19

IntroductionSeveral clinical trials have demonstrated that REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) decreases the risk of hospitalization and death among COVID-19 patients. However, these trials did not evaluate the optimal timing of its administration, and evidence is limited regarding the relationship between the timing of administration and progression to severe COVID-19 among patients who receive REGEN-COV in a real-world setting. We examined the association between the timing of REGEN-COV administration and progression to severe COVID-19 among patients who received REGEN-COV in Japan.MethodsWe included a total of 342 COVID-19 patients (37 hospitals) who received REGEN-COV between July 19 and September 30, 2021. We calculated the difference between the date of symptom onset and the date of administration as an indicator of the timing of REGEN-COV administration and determined progression to severe COVID-19 after REGEN-COV administration. We conducted a logistic regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe proportion of cases progressing to severe COVID-19 increased daily from symptom onset and sharply increased from day 5 of onset. The early administration (days 0–4) decreased the risk of progression to severity compared with late administration (after day 5), with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.29 (95% confidence interval: 0.11–0.56).ConclusionsThe early administration of REGEN-COV was associated with a decreased risk of progression to severe COVID-19 when the delta variant was dominant. The present epidemiological findings indicate that this monoclonal antibody therapy should be implemented very early in the clinical course probably even for emerging variants such as omicron BA.2.     

Evidence-Based Strategies for Clinical Organizations to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

The success of vaccination programs is contingent upon irrefutable scientific safety data combined with high rates of public acceptance and population coverage. Vaccine hesitancy, characterized by lack of confidence in vaccination and/or complacency about vaccination that may lead to delay or refusal of vaccination despite the availability of services, threatens to undermine the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. The rapid pace of vaccine development, misinformation in popular and social media, the polarized sociopolitical environment, and the inherent complexities of large-scale vaccination efforts may undermine vaccination confidence and increase complacency about COVID-19 vaccination. Although the experience of recent lethal surges of COVID-19 infections has underscored the value of COVID-19 vaccines, ensuring population uptake of COVID-19 vaccination will require application of multilevel, evidence-based strategies to influence behavior change and address vaccine hesitancy. Recent survey research evaluating public attitudes in the United States toward the COVID-19 vaccine reveals substantial vaccine hesitancy. Building upon efforts at the policy and community level to ensure population access to COVID-19 vaccination, a strong health care system response is critical to address vaccine hesitancy. Drawing on the evidence base in social, behavioral, communication, and implementation science, we review, summarize, and encourage use of interpersonal, individual-level, and organizational interventions within clinical organizations to address this critical gap and improve population adoption of COVID-19 vaccination.     

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research

ObjectiveTo report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models.ResultsA total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19–directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care.ConclusionMayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Booster on the Risk of Hospitalization Among Medicare Beneficiaries

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of booster vaccinations on the risk of hospitalization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and how it varies by enrollee characteristics and interval from the initial vaccination to receipt of a booster.Patients and MethodsThis cohort study used 100% Medicare claims from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021, and matched 3,940,475 individuals who received boosters to 3,940,475 controls based on week and type of original COVID-19 vaccine and demographic and clinical characteristics. We compared the association of booster vs no booster with COVID-19 hospitalization using Cox proportional hazards regression models controlling for patient characteristics. We also determined the association of time from original vaccine to booster with COVID-19 hospitalization.ResultsOver a maximum of 130 days of follow-up, boosted enrollees had 8.20 (95% CI, 7.81 to 8.60) COVID-19 hospitalizations per million days vs 43.70 (95% CI, 42.79 to 44.64) for controls (81% effectiveness). Effectiveness varied by race, prior hospitalizations, and certain comorbidities, for example, leukemia/lymphoma (53% effectiveness), autoimmune disease (73%), and dementia (73%). Boosters received between 6 and 9 months after original vaccination varied between 81% and 85% effectiveness, while boosters received at 5 to 6 months (62%) or less than 5 months (58%) were less effective.ConclusionBoosters are highly effective in the Medicare population. Approximately 69,225 hospitalizations would be prevented by boosters in the 15 million individuals aged 65 years or older currently not boosted in a period similar to the September 2020 through January 2021 period studied. Boosters provided the greatest benefits if they were received between 6 and 9 months following original vaccinations. However, boosters were associated with substantial decreases in COVID-19 hospitalizations in all categories of enrollees.     

Comparison of clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in pregnant women between the Delta and Omicron variants of concern predominant periods

BackgroundInformation regarding effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant strains on clinical manifestations and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pregnant women is limited.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted using the data from the nationwide COVID-19 registry in Japan. We identified pregnant patients with symptomatic COVID-19 hospitalized during the study period. The Delta and Omicron variants of concern (VOC) predominant periods were defined as August 1 to December 31, 2021 and January 1 to May 31, 2022, respectively. Clinical characteristics were compared between the patients in the Delta and Omicron VOC periods. In addition, logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19.ResultsDuring the study period, 310 symptomatic COVID-19 cases of pregnant women were identified; 111 and 199 patients were hospitalized during the Delta and Omicron VOC periods, respectively. Runny nose and sore throat were more common, and fatigue, dysgeusia, and olfactory dysfunction were less common manifestations observed in the Omicron VOC period. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, onset during the later stage of pregnancy (OR: 2.08 [1.24–3.71]) and onset during the Delta VOC period (OR: 2.25 [1.08–4.90]) were independently associated with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, whereas two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were protective against developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR: 0.34 [0.13–0.84]).ConclusionsClinical manifestations of COVID-19 in pregnant women differed between the Delta and Omicron VOC periods. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was still effective in preventing severe COVID-19 throughout the Delta and Omicron VOC periods.     

Year 3 of COVID-19: Harsh Truths,Brutal Realities,and Glimmers of Hope

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has now killed 1 of every 303 Americans. Whereas 4 vaccines are approved in the United States and masks are widely available, too few are fully immunized and most of the population has stopped wearing protective masks. The ongoing consequences of this include continued excess morbidity and mortality and the generation of immune-evading variants and subvariants, which in toto are injurious and ultimately self-defeating. Herein we briefly update and review COVID-19 vaccines, waning immunity, and new variants.     

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo,Japan: A single-center case series

IntroductionWe reported, in our previous study, a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who was successfully treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Data on clinical courses and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Japan are limited in the literature. This study aimed to describe the clinical courses and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo, Japan.MethodsThis is a single-center case series study. Patients with COVID-19 treated with mechanical ventilation (MV) were reviewed retrospectively. Data on baseline characteristics, in-hospital treatment, and outcomes were collected.ResultsBetween February 2, 2020, and June 30, 2020, 14 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were treated with MV. Most patients were male and had comorbidities, especially hypertension or diabetes; 35.7% were overweight and 21.4% were obese. The majority of the patients had dyspnea on admission. The median duration of MV was 10.5 days, and the 28-day mortality rate was 35.7%. In the four patients with COVID-19 who died, the cause of death was respiratory failure.ConclusionsAs in previous reports from other countries, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care remains high in Tokyo. Further study on the appropriate timing of MV initiation and specific treatments for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is needed.     

Characteristics,Treatment Patterns,and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic,March to October 2020

ObjectiveTo compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Patients and MethodsThe study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre–COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames.ResultsThe adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre–COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre–COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05).ConclusionThe findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre–COVID-19 time frame.     

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Essentials of Diagnosis and Management

Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful. Consequently, up to 91% of patients in the United States remain undiagnosed, and those diagnosed often receive inappropriate treatment. These problems are of increasing importance because after acute COVID-19, a significant percentage of people remain ill for many months with an illness similar to ME/CFS. In 2015, the US National Academy of Medicine published new evidence-based clinical diagnostic criteria that have been adopted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, the United States and other governments as well as major health care organizations have recently withdrawn graded exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy as the treatment of choice for patients with ME/CFS. Recently, 21 clinicians specializing in ME/CFS convened to discuss best clinical practices for adults affected by ME/CFS. This article summarizes their top recommendations for generalist and specialist health care providers based on recent scientific progress and decades of clinical experience. There are many steps that clinicians can take to improve the health, function, and quality of life of those with ME/CFS, including those in whom ME/CFS develops after COVID-19. Patients with a lingering illness that follows acute COVID-19 who do not fully meet criteria for ME/CFS may also benefit from these approaches.     

Increased Utilization of Virtual Visits and Electronic Approaches in Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Thereafter

ObjectivesTo assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research and the use of electronic approaches to mitigate this impact.MethodsWe compared the utilization of electronic consenting, remote visits, and remote monitoring by study monitors in all research studies conducted at Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, between May 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020). Participants are consented through a participant-tracking system linked to the electronic health record.ResultsBetween May 2019, and December 2020, there were 130,800 new consents across every modality (electronic and paper) to participate in a non-trial (107,176 [82%]) or a clinical trial (23,624 [18%]). New consents declined from 5741 in February 2020 to 913 in April 2020 but increased to 11,864 in November 2020. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) proportion of electronic consent increased from 22 (2%) before to 45 (20%) during the pandemic (P=.001). Mean (SD) remote electronic consenting increased from 0.3 (0.5%) to 29 (21%) (P<.001). The mean (SD) number of patients with virtual visits increased from 3.5 (2.4%) to 172 (135%) (P=.003) per month between pre-COVID (July 2019 to February 2020) and post-COVID (March to December 2020) periods. Virtual visits used telemedicine (68%) or video (32%). Requests for remote monitor access to complete visits increased from 44 (17%) per month between May 2019 and February 2020 to 111 (74%) per month between March and December 2020 (P=.10).ConclusionAfter a sharp early decline, the enrollment of new participants and ongoing study visits recovered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This recovery was accompanied by the increased use of electronic tools.     

Clinical Characteristics,Treatment, and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Scoping Review

A growing number of studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming available, but a synthesis of available data focusing on the critically ill population has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review to synthesize clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes among critically ill patients with COVID-19. Between January 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, we identified high-quality clinical studies describing critically ill patients with a sample size of greater than 20 patients by performing daily searches of the World Health Organization and LitCovid databases on COVID-19. Two reviewers independently reviewed all abstracts (2785 unique articles), full text (218 articles), and abstracted data (92 studies). The 92 studies included 61 from Asia, 16 from Europe, 10 from North and South America, and 5 multinational studies. Notable similarities among critically ill populations across all regions included a higher proportion of older males infected and with severe illness, high frequency of comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease), abnormal chest imaging findings, and death secondary to respiratory failure. Differences in regions included newly identified complications (eg, pulmonary embolism) and epidemiological risk factors (eg, obesity), less chest computed tomography performed, and increased use of invasive mechanical ventilation (70% to 100% vs 15% to 47% of intensive care unit patients) in Europe and the United States compared with Asia. Future research directions should include proof-of-mechanism studies to better understand organ injuries and large-scale collaborative clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antivirals, antibiotics, interleukin 6 receptor blockers, and interferon. The current established predictive models require further verification in other regions outside China.     

Vitamin D Status Is Associated With In-Hospital Mortality and Mechanical Ventilation: A Cohort of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo explore the possible associations of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in-hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation.Patients and MethodsA retrospective, observational, cohort study was conducted at 2 tertiary academic medical centers in Boston and New York. Eligible participants were hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between February 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and disease-related outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records.ResultsThe final analysis included 144 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (median age, 66 years; 64 [44.4%] male). Overall mortality was 18%, whereas patients with 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL (to convert to nmol/L, multiply by 2.496) and higher had lower rates of mortality compared with those with 25(OH)D levels below 30 ng/mL (9.2% vs 25.3%; P=.02). In the adjusted multivariable analyses, 25(OH)D as a continuous variable was independently significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98; P=.007) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99; P=.01). Similar data were obtained when 25(OH)D was studied as a continuous variable after logarithm transformation and as a dichotomous (<30 ng/mL vs ≥30 ng/mL) or ordinal variable (quintiles) in the multivariable analyses.ConclusionAmong patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, 25(OH)D levels were inversely associated with in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Further observational studies are needed to confirm these findings, and randomized clinical trials must be conducted to assess the role of vitamin D administration in improving the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19.     

Arterial Thrombotic Events in Adult Inpatients With COVID-19

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical course of and risk factors for arterial thrombotic events in adult inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsAll consecutive adult patients admitted for COVID-19 infection in a referral center in France and discharged from the hospital between April 1 and April 30, 2020, were included. All arterial thrombotic events that occurred through discharge were considered for analysis. Epidemiologic, demographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment, and outcome data were extracted from electronic medical records with use of a standardized data collection form.ResultsOverall, 531 COVID-19+ patients were analyzed. Among them, 30 (5.6%) experienced arterial thrombotic events. Arterial thrombotic events in the setting of COVID-19 infection happened at a median of 11 (5-20) days after the first symptoms of infection; occurred in high-risk patients according to traditional cardiovascular risk factors; had an atypical pattern, such as thrombosis of the aorta, upper limb, or renal arteries or cerebral microvasculopathy in 7 (23.3%) cases; and were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 40%. Arterial thrombotic events increased the risk of death by 3-fold in COVID-19+ patients (hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.7; P=.002). A subdistribution survival hazard model showed that a concentration of D-dimer above 1250 ng/mL increased the risk of arterial thrombotic events in COVID-19+ patients by more than 7 (subdistribution hazard ratio, 7.68; 95% CI, 2.9 to 20.6; P<.001).ConclusionA dramatically high rate of in-hospital death was observed in patients who suffered arterial thrombotic events in the setting of COVID-19 infection. A D-dimer level above 1250 ng/mL at entry may identify COVID-19+ patients at risk for arterial thrombotic events.     

Place and Underlying Cause of Death During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study of 3.5 Million Deaths in England and Wales, 2014 to 2020

ObjectiveTo describe the place and cause of death during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to assess its impact on excess mortality.MethodsThis national death registry included all adult (aged ≥18 years) deaths in England and Wales between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020. Daily deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared against the expected daily deaths, estimated with use of the Farrington surveillance algorithm for daily historical data between 2014 and 2020 by place and cause of death.ResultsBetween March 2 and June 30, 2020, there was an excess mortality of 57,860 (a proportional increase of 35%) compared with the expected deaths, of which 50,603 (87%) were COVID-19 related. At home, only 14% (2267) of the 16,190 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, with 5963 deaths due to cancer and 2485 deaths due to cardiac disease, few of which involved COVID-19. In care homes or hospices, 61% (15,623) of the 25,611 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, 5539 of which were due to respiratory disease, and most of these (4315 deaths) involved COVID-19. In the hospital, there were 16,174 fewer deaths than expected that did not involve COVID-19, with 4088 fewer deaths due to cancer and 1398 fewer deaths due to cardiac disease than expected.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a large excess of deaths in care homes that were poorly characterized and likely to be the result of undiagnosed COVID-19. There was a smaller but important and ongoing excess in deaths at home, particularly from cancer and cardiac disease, suggesting public avoidance of hospital care for non–COVID-19 conditions.     

Predictors of Low Physical Function in Patients With COVID-19 With Acute Respiratory Failure Admitted to a Subacute Unit

ObjectiveTo document the level of physical function in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recovering from acute respiratory failure and investigate which patient clinical characteristics could predict physical function assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) test.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSubacute unit of a Rehabilitation Institute.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 (N=184; aged 18 years or older) who were admitted to a subacute unit to stabilize their condition and recover from acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresAt admission patients underwent the SPPB test, represented by the sum of 3 functional tests, standing balance, 4-meter gait speed, and 5-repetition sit-to-stand motion. Comparisons between 2 SPPB score groups were performed by an unpaired t test; multivariate stepwise linear regression analysis was employed to detect predictors of the SPPB score considering several clinical parameters.ResultsParticipants were 74±12 years old, 52% were men and with more than 2 comorbidities in 43% of cases. SPPB score was 3.02±3.87 denoting patients’ profound physical dysfunction. Normal physical function was detected in only 12% of patients, whereas low, intermediate, and severe impairment was found in 65%, 13%, and 10%, respectively. Age, both invasive and noninvasive ventilation use, and the presence of previous disability were significant predictors of SPPB. Patients without any comorbidities (8%) also exhibited low function (SPPB: 5.67±1.12).ConclusionsThe majority of survivors after COVID-19 experienced acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia and exhibited substantial physical dysfunction influenced by age, mechanical ventilation need, and previous disability. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of rehabilitation to promote recovery and community reintegration in this population.     

COVID-19 in Health Care Personnel: Significance of Health Care Role,Contact History,and Symptoms in Those Who Test Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

ObjectiveTo identify significant factors that help predict whether health care personnel (HCP) will test positive for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Patients and MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study among 7015 symptomatic HCP from March 25, 2020, through November 11, 2020. We analyzed the associations between health care role, contact history, symptoms, and a positive nasopharyngeal swab SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test results, using univariate and multivariable modelling.ResultsOf the symptomatic HCP, 624 (8.9%) were positive over the study period. On multivariable analysis, having a health care role other than physician or advanced practice provider, contact with family or community member with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and seven individual symptoms (cough, anosmia, ageusia, fever, myalgia, chills, and headache) were significantly associated with higher adjusted odds ratios for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. For each increase in symptom number, the odds of testing positive nearly doubled (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.07, P<.001).ConclusionSymptomatic HCP have higher adjusted odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on three distinct factors: (1) nonphysician/advanced practice provider role, (2) contact with a family or community member with suspected or known COVID-19, and (3) specific symptoms and symptom number. Differences among health care roles, which persisted after controlling for contacts, may reflect the influence of social determinants. Contacts with COVID-19–positive patients and/or HCP were not associated with higher odds of testing positive, supporting current infection control efforts. Targeted symptom and contact questionnaires may streamline symptomatic HCP testing for COVID-19.     

CT screening for COVID-19 in asymptomatic patients before hospital admission

IntroductionIn the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic era, it is essential to rule out COVID-19 effectively to prevent transmission in both communities and medical facilities. According to previous reports in high prevalence areas, CT screening may be useful in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, the value of CT screening in low prevalence areas has scarcely been reported.MethodsThis report examines the diagnostic efficacy of CT screening before admission to a hospital in Tokyo. We conducted a retrospective analysis at Keio University Hospital from April 6, 2020, through May 29, 2020. We set up an outpatient screening clinic on April 6 for COVID-19, administering both PCR with nasopharyngeal swabs and chest CT for all patients scheduled for surgery under general anesthesia.ResultsA total of 292 asymptomatic patients were included in this study. There were three PCR-positive patients, and they all had negative CT findings, which revealed that both the sensitivity and positive predictive value of CT (PPV) were 0%. There were nine CT-positive patients; the specificity and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 96.9% and 98.9%, respectively.ConclusionCT screening was not useful in low prevalence areas at this time in Tokyo, even with the inclusion of the most prevalent phase. Given that the utility of CT screening depends on disease prevalence, the criteria for performing CT screening based on the prevalence of COVID-19 should be established.