Effect of mortality from COVID-19 on inpatient outcomes

When hospitals first encountered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a dearth of therapeutic options and nearly 1 in 3 patients died from the disease. By the summer of 2020, as deaths from the disease declined nationally, multiple single-center studies began to report declining mortality of patients with COVID-19. To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on hospital-based mortality, we searched the Vizient Clinical Data Base for outcomes data from approximately 600 participating hospitals, including 130 academic medical centers, from January 2017 through December 2020. More than 32 million hospital admissions were included in the analysis. After an initial spike, mortality from COVID-19 declined in all regions of the country to under 10% by June 2020 and remained constant for the remainder of the year. Despite this, inpatient, all-cause mortality has increased since the beginning of the pandemic, even those without respiratory failure. Inpatient mortality has particularly increased in elderly patients and in those requiring intubation for respiratory failure. Since June 2020, COVID-19 kills one in every 10 patients admitted to the hospital with this diagnosis. The addition of this new disease has raised overall hospital mortality especially those who require intubation for respiratory failure.     

Method’s corner: Allergist’s guide to network meta-analysis

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) simultaneously estimate the effects of multiple possible treatment options for a given clinical presentation. For allergists to benefit optimally from NMAs, they must understand the process and be able to interpret the results. Through a worked example published in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, we summarize how to identify credible NMAs and interpret them with a focus on recent innovations in the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). NMAs build on traditional systematic reviews and meta-analyses that consider only direct paired comparisons by including indirect evidence, thus allowing the simultaneous assessment of the relative effect of all pairs of competing alternatives. Our framework informs clinicians of how to identify credible NMAs and address the certainty of the evidence. Trustworthy NMAs fill a critical gap in providing key inferences using direct and indirect evidence to inform clinical decision making when faced with more than two competing courses of treatment options. This document will help allergists to identify trustworthy NMAs to enhance patient care.     

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity

Objective

The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms.

Data Sources and Study Setting

AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup–the authors of this paper–as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity.

Study Design

The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base.

Principal Findings

The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools.

Conclusions

Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.