Search

Rationale: Prone positioning for ⩾16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS. Methods: Data were extracted from a five-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (⩾24 h) versus standard (16-24 h) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Analytically, we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox or Fine-Gray regression models. Results: A total of 314 patients were included; 234 received extended proning, and 80 received standard-duration proning. Patients who received extended proning were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended versus standard proning groups was 39% versus 58%. In doubly robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (subdistribution hazard, 1.60 [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (subdistribution hazard, 1.31 [0.82-2.10]). Conclusions: Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified.

Background: Research suggests an association between COVID-19 infection and certain financial hardships in the shorter term and among single-state and privately insured samples. Whether COVID-19 is associated with financial hardship in the longer-term or among socially vulnerable populations is unknown. Therefore, we examined whether COVID-19 was associated with a range of financial hardships 18 months after initial infection among a national cohort of Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-the largest national integrated health system in the US. We additionally explored the association between Veteran characteristics and financial hardship during the pandemic, irrespective of COVID-19., Methods: We conducted a prospective, telephone-based survey. Out of 600 Veterans with COVID-19 from October 2020 through April 2021 who were invited to participate, 194 Veterans with COVID-19 and 194 matched comparators without a history of infection participated. Financial hardship outcomes included overall health-related financial strain, two behavioral financial hardships (e.g., taking less medication than prescribed due to cost), and seven material financial hardships (e.g., using up most or all savings). Weighted generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of financial hardship by COVID-19 status, and to assess the relationship between infection and Veteran age, VHA copay status, and comorbidity score, irrespective of COVID-19 status., Results: Among 388 respondents, 67% reported at least one type of financial hardship since March 2020, with 21% reporting behavioral hardships and 64% material hardships; 8% reported severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain. Compared with uninfected matched comparators, Veterans with a history of COVID-19 had greater risks of severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain (RR: 4.0, CI: 1.4-11.2), taking less medication due to cost (RR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.0-8.6), and having a loved one take time off work to care for them (RR: 1.9, CI: 1.1-3.6). Irrespective of COVID-19 status, Veterans aged < 65 years had a greater risk of most financial hardships compared with Veterans aged ≥ 65 years., Conclusions: Health-related financial hardships such as taking less medication due to cost and severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain were more common among Veterans with a history of COVID-19 than among matched comparators. Strategies are needed to address health-related financial hardship after COVID-19., Trial Registration: NCT05394025, registered 05-27-2022., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: Pulse oximetry guides clinical decisions, yet does not uniformly identify hypoxemia. We hypothesized that nursing documentation of notifying providers, facilitated by a standardized flowsheet for documenting communication to providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), may increase when hypoxemia is present, but undetected by the pulse oximeter, in events termed "occult hypoxemia.", Objective: To compare nurse documentation of provider notification in the 4 h preceding cases of occult hypoxemia, normal oxygenation, and evident hypoxemia confirmed by an arterial blood gas reading., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data from patients with COVID-19 at five hospitals in a healthcare system with paired SpO 2 and SaO 2 readings (measurements within 10 min of oxygen saturation levels in arterial blood, SaO 2 , and by pulse oximetry, SpO 2 ). We applied multivariate logistic regression to assess if having any nursing documentation of provider notification in the 4 h prior to a paired reading confirming occult hypoxemia was more likely compared to a paired reading confirming normal oxygen status, adjusting for characteristics significantly associated with nursing documentation. We applied conditional logistic regression to assess if having any nursing documentation of provider notification was more likely in the 4-hour window preceding a paired reading compared to the 4-hour window 24 h earlier separately for occult hypoxemia, visible hypoxemia, and normal oxygenation., Results: There were data from 1910 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had 44,972 paired readings and an average of 26.5 (34.5) nursing documentation of provider notification events. The mean age was 63.4 (16.2). Almost half (866/1910, 45.3 %) were White, 701 (36.7 %) were Black, and 239 (12.5 %) were Hispanic. Having any nursing documentation of provider notification was 46 % more common in the 4 h before an occult hypoxemia paired reading compared to a normal oxygen status paired reading (OR 1.46, 95 % CI: 1.28-1.67). Comparing the 4 h immediately before the reading to the 4 h one day preceding the paired reading, there was a higher likelihood of having any nursing documentation of provider notification for both evident (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.24-1.68) and occult paired readings (OR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.04-1.53)., Conclusion: This study finds that nursing documentation of provider notification significantly increases prior to confirmed occult hypoxemia, which has potential in proactively identifying occult hypoxemia and other clinical issues. There is potential value to encouraging standardized documentation of nurse concern, including communication to providers, to facilitate its inclusion in clinical decision-making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior research demonstrates that SARS-COV-2 infection can be associated with a broad range of mental health outcomes including depression symptoms. Veterans, in particular, may be at elevated risk of increased depression following SARS-COV-2 infection given their high rates of pre-existing mental and physical health comorbidities. However, few studies have tried to isolate SARS-COV-2 infection associations with long term, patient-reported depression symptoms from other factors (e.g., physical health comorbidities, pandemic-related stress)., Objective: To evaluate the association between SARS-COV-2 infection and subsequent depression symptoms among United States Military Veterans., Design: Survey-based non-randomized cohort study with matched comparators., Participants: A matched-dyadic sample from a larger, stratified random sample of participants with and without known to SARS-COV-2 infection were invited to participate in a survey evaluating mental health and wellness 18-months after their index infection date. Sampled participants were stratified by infection severity of the participant infected with SARS-COV-2 (hospitalized or not) and by month of index date. A total of 186 participants in each group agreed to participate in the survey and had sufficient data for inclusion in analyses. Those in the uninfected group who were later infected were excluded from analyses., Main Measures: Participants were administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as part of a phone interview survey. Demographics, physical and mental health comorbidities were extracted from VHA administrative data., Key Results: Veterans infected with SARS-COV-2 had significantly higher depression symptoms scores compared with those uninfected. In particular, psychological symptoms (e.g., low mood, suicidal ideation) scores were elevated relative to the comparator group (M Infected  = 3.16, 95%CI: 2.5, 3.8; M Uninfected  = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.4, 2.5). Findings were similar regardless of history of depression., Conclusion: SARS-COV-2 infection was associated with more depression symptoms among Veterans at 18-months post-infection. Routine evaluation of depression symptoms over time following SARS-COV-2 infection is important to facilitate adequate assessment and treatment., (© 2024. The Authors.)

Importance: Research demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization. However, no prior studies have assessed the association between SARS-CoV-2 and potentially preventable hospitalizations-that is, hospitalizations for conditions that can usually be effectively managed in ambulatory care settings., Objective: To examine whether SARS-CoV-2 is associated with potentially preventable hospitalization in a nationwide cohort of US veterans., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an emulated target randomized trial design with monthly sequential trials to compare risk of a potentially preventable hospitalization among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and matched comparators without SARS-CoV-2. A total of 189 136 US veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, and 943 084 matched comparators were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from May 10, 2023, to January 26, 2024., Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a first potentially preventable hospitalization in VHA facilities, VHA-purchased community care, or Medicare fee-for-service care. Extended Cox models were used to examine adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) of potentially preventable hospitalization among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and comparators during follow-up periods of 0 to 30, 0 to 90, 0 to 180, and 0 to 365 days. The start of follow-up was defined as the date of each veteran's first positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, with the same index date applied to their matched comparators., Results: The 1 132 220 participants were predominantly men (89.06%), with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (16.4) years. Most veterans were of Black (23.44%) or White (69.37%) race. Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and comparators were well-balanced (standardized mean differences, all <0.100) on observable baseline clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, 3.10% of veterans (3.81% of those with SARS-CoV-2 and 2.96% of comparators) had a potentially preventable hospitalization during 1-year follow-up. Risk of a potentially preventable hospitalization was greater among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 than comparators in 4 follow-up periods: 0- to 30-day AHR of 3.26 (95% CI, 3.06-3.46); 0- to 90-day AHR of 2.12 (95% CI, 2.03-2.21); 0- to 180-day AHR of 1.69 (95% CI, 1.63-1.75); and 0- to 365-day AHR of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.40-1.48)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, an increased risk of preventable hospitalization in veterans with SARS-CoV-2, which persisted for at least 1 year after initial infection, highlights the need for research on ways in which SARS-CoV-2 shapes postinfection care needs and engagement with the health system. Solutions are needed to mitigate preventable hospitalization after SARS-CoV-2.

Importance: Changes in everyday functioning are crucial to assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection., Objective: To examine the impact of COVID-19 infection on everyday functioning 18 months after infection among veterans with and without histories of COVID-19 infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the US Veterans Affairs (VA) and included 186 veterans who had COVID-19 between October 2020 and April 2021 (ie, COVID-19 cohort) and 186 matched comparators who did not have documented COVID-19 infections (ie, control cohort). This match balanced the risk of COVID-19 based on 39 variables measured in the 24 months before infection or match, using principles of target trial emulation. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023., Exposure: First documented COVID-19., Main Outcome and Measures: The differences in self-reported everyday functioning 18 months after COVID-19 infection were estimated and compared with their matched comparators. Within-matched pair logistic and linear regressions assessed differences in outcomes and were weighted to account for sampling and nonresponse., Results: Among the 186 matched pairs of participants, their weighted mean age was 60.4 (95% CI, 57.5 to 63.2) years among veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted sample, 91 459 of 101 133 [90.4%] male; 30 611 [30.3%] Black or African American veterans; 65 196 [64.4%] White veterans) and 61.1 (95% CI, 57.8 to 64.4) years among their comparators in the control cohort (91 459 [90.4%] male; 24 576 [24.3%] Black or African American veterans; 70 157 [69.4%] White veterans). A high proportion of veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted percentage, 44.9% [95% CI, 34.2% to 56.2%]) reported that they could do less than what they felt they could do at the beginning of 2020 compared with the control cohort (weighted percentage, 35.3%; [95% CI, 25.6% to 46.4%]; within-matched pair adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.79 to 2.91]). There was no association of documented COVID-19 infection with fatigue, substantial pain, limitations in either activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, severely curtailed life-space mobility, employment, or mean health-related quality of life on a utility scale., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of veterans with and without documented COVID-19, many reported a substantial loss of everyday functioning during the pandemic regardless of whether or not they had a documented infection with COVID-19. Future work with larger samples is needed to validate the estimated associations.

Background: Negative mental health-related effects of SARS-COV-2 infection are increasingly evident. However, the impact on suicide-related outcomes is poorly understood, especially among populations at elevated risk., Objective: To determine risk of suicide attempts and other self-directed violence (SDV) after SARS-COV-2 infection in a high-risk population., Design: We employed an observational design supported by comprehensive electronic health records from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to examine the association of SARS-COV-2 infection with suicide attempts and other SDV within one year of infection. Veterans with SARS-COV-2 infections were matched 1:5 with non-infected comparators each month. Three periods after index were evaluated: days 1-30, days 31-365, and days 1-365., Participants: VHA patients infected with SARS-COV-2 between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 and matched non-infected Veteran comparators., Main Measures: Suicide attempt and other SDV events for the COVID-19 and non-infected comparator groups were analyzed using incidence rates per 100,000 person years and hazard ratios from Cox regressions modeling time from matched index date to first event. Subgroups were also examined., Key Results: 198,938 veterans with SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19 group) and 992,036 comparators were included. Unadjusted one-year incidence per 100,000 for suicide attempt and other SDV was higher among the COVID-19 group: 355 vs 250 and 327 vs 235, respectively. The COVID-19 group had higher risk than comparators for suicide attempts: days 1-30 hazard ratio (HR) = 2.54 (CI:2.05, 3.15), days 31-365 HR = 1.30 (CI:1.19, 1.43) and days 1-365 HR = 1.41 (CI:1.30, 1.54), and for other SDV: days 1-30 HR = 1.94 (CI:1.51, 2.49), days 31-365 HR = 1.32 (CI:1.20, 1.45) and days 1-365 HR = 1.38 (CI:1.26, 1.51)., Conclusions: COVID-19 patients had higher risks of both suicide attempts and other forms of SDV compared to uninfected comparators, which persisted for at least one year after infection. Results support suicide risk screening of those infected with SARS-COV-2 to identify opportunities to prevent self-harm., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Importance: The association of COVID-19 infection with outpatient care utilization is unclear. Many studies reported population surveillance studies rather than comparing outpatient health care use between COVID-19-infected and uninfected cohorts., Objective: To compare outpatient health care use across 6 categories of care (primary care, specialty care, surgery care, mental health, emergency care, and diagnostic and/or other care) between veterans with or without COVID-19 infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs primary care patients, veterans with COVID-19 infection were matched to a cohort of uninfected veterans. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fee-for-Service Carrier/Physician Supplier file from January 2019 through December 2022. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to April 2023., Exposure: COVID-19 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the count of outpatient visits after COVID-19 infection. Negative binomial regression models compared outpatient use over a 1-year preinfection period, and peri-infection (0-30 days), intermediate (31-183 days), and long-term (184-365 days) postinfection periods., Results: The infected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [16.2] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) and uninfected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [16.5] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) cohorts were well matched across all covariates. Outpatient use in all categories (except surgical care) was significantly elevated during the peri-infection period for veterans with COVID-19 infection compared with the uninfected cohort, with an increase in all visits of 5.12 visits per 30 days (95% CI, 5.09-5.16 visits per 30 days), predominantly owing to primary care visits (increase of 1.86 visits per 30 days; 95% CI, 1.85-1.87 visits per 30 days). Differences in outpatient use attenuated over time but remained statistically significantly higher at 184 to 365 days after infection (increase of 0.25 visit per 30 days; 95% CI, 0.23-0.27 visit per 30 days). One-half of the increased outpatient visits were delivered via telehealth. The utilization increase was greatest for veterans aged 85 years and older (6.1 visits, 95% CI, 5.9-6.3 visits) vs those aged 20 to 44 years (4.8 visits, 95% CI, 4.7-4.8 visits) and unvaccinated veterans (4.5 visits, 95% CI, 4.3-4.6 visits) vs vaccinated veterans (3.2 visits; 95% CI, 3.4-4.8 visits)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that outpatient use increased significantly in the month after infection, then attenuated but remained greater than the uninfected cohorts' use through 12 months, which suggests that there are sustained impacts of COVID-19 infection.

Aim and Objective: To identify how family caregivers adapt to the caregiving role following a relative's COVID-19-related intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalisation., Background: Family caregiving is often associated with poor health amongst caregivers which may limit their capacity to effectively support patients. Though severe COVID-19 infection has necessitated increasing numbers of persons who require caregiver support, little is known about these caregivers, the persons they are caring for, or the strategies used to effectively adjust to the caregiving role., Design: A qualitative descriptive study design was adopted, and findings are reported using COREQ., Methods: A secondary analysis of transcripts from semi-structured interviews conducted with recently discharged ICU patients who had COVID-19 (n = 16) and their family caregivers (n = 16) was completed using thematic analysis. MAXQDA 2020 and Miro were used to organise data and complete coding. Analysis involved a structured process of open and closed coding to identify and confirm themes that elucidated adaptation to family caregiving., Results: Six themes highlight how family caregivers adapt to the caregiving role following an ICU COVID-19-related hospitalisation including (1) engaging the support of family and friends, (2) increased responsibilities to accommodate caregiving, (3) managing emotions, (4) managing infection control, (5) addressing patient independence and (6) engaging support services. These themes were found to be congruent with the Roy adaptation model., Conclusions: Family caregiving is a stressful transition following a patient's acute hospitalisation. Effective adaptation requires flexibility and sufficient support, beginning with the care team who can adequately prepare the family for the anticipated challenges of recovery., Relevance to Clinical Practice: Clinical teams may improve post-hospitalisation care outcomes of patients by preparing families to effectively adjust to the caregiver role-particularly in identifying sufficient support resources., Patient or Public Contribution: Participation of patients/caregivers in this study was limited to the data provided through participant interviews., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: A significant proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals experience post-COVID-19 condition months after initial infection., Objective: To determine the rates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with the documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code U09.9 for post-COVID-19 condition after acute infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Veterans with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result between October 1, 2021, the date ICD-10 code U09.9 was introduced, and January 31, 2023 (n = 388 980), and a randomly selected subsample of patients with the U09.9 code (n = 350) whose symptom prevalence was assessed by systematic medical record review, were included in the analysis., Exposure: Positive SARS-CoV-2 test result., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with ICD-10 code U09.9 in the medical record., Results: Among the 388 980 persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, the mean (SD) age was 61.4 (16.1) years; 87.3% were men. In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.4% were Asian, 20.7% were Black, 9.3% were Hispanic or Latino, 1.0% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and 67.8% were White. Cumulative incidence of U09.9 documentation was 4.79% (95% CI, 4.73%-4.87%) at 6 months and 5.28% (95% CI, 5.21%-5.36%) at 12 months after infection. Factors independently associated with U09.9 documentation included older age, female sex, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, comorbidity burden, and severe acute infection manifesting by symptoms, hospitalization, or ventilation. Primary vaccination (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.83]) and booster vaccination (AHR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.64-0.69]) were associated with a lower likelihood of U09.9 documentation. Marked differences by geographic region and facility in U09.9 code documentation may reflect local screening and care practices. Among the 350 patients undergoing systematic medical record review, the most common symptoms documented in the medical records among patients with the U09.9 code were shortness of breath (130 [37.1%]), fatigue or exhaustion (78 [22.3%]), cough (63 [18.0%]), reduced cognitive function or brain fog (22 [6.3%]), and change in smell and/or taste (20 [5.7%])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 388 980 veterans, documentation of ICD-10 code U09.9 had marked regional and facility-level variability. Strong risk factors for U09.9 documentation were identified, while vaccination appeared to be protective. Accurate and consistent documentation of U09.9 is needed to maximize its utility in tracking patients for clinical care and research. Future studies should examine the long-term trajectory of individuals with U09.9 documentation.

Background: COVID-19 has been linked to the development of many post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) after acute infection. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of oral antivirals used to treat acute COVID-19 in preventing the development of PCCs., Objective: To measure the effectiveness of outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing PCCs., Design: Retrospective target trial emulation study comparing matched cohorts receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment., Setting: Veterans Health Administration (VHA)., Participants: Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022., Intervention: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19., Measurements: Cumulative incidence of 31 potential PCCs at 31 to 180 days after treatment or a matched index date, including cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and general conditions and symptoms., Results: Eighty-six percent of the participants were male, with a median age of 66 years, and 17.5% were unvaccinated. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and matched untreated comparators. No differences were observed between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir ( n = 9593) and their matched untreated comparators in the incidence of most PCCs examined individually or grouped by organ system, except for lower combined risk for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (subhazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97]; cumulative incidence difference, -0.29 percentage points [CI, -0.52 to -0.05 percentage points])., Limitations: Ascertainment of PCCs using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes may be inaccurate. Evaluation of many outcomes could have resulted in spurious associations with combined thromboembolic events by chance., Conclusion: Out of 31 potential PCCs, only combined thromboembolic events seemed to be reduced by nirmatrelvir-ritonavir., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1394.

Background: In 2020, many family members were thrust into the role of caregiving for a relative with COVID-19 with little preparation, training, or understanding of the disease and its symptoms., Objectives: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of caregiving experienced by family caregivers of patients with COVID-19 who had been in intensive care in the pandemic's earliest months., Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted by web conference with 16 adults recovering at home after intubation for COVID-19 in an intensive care unit at a major academic medical center and their primary caregivers from March to August 2020 (N = 32). Thematic qualitative analysis was done using Watkins' rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique with MAXQDA software., Results: Seven themes emerged regarding factors that facilitated or posed barriers to care: other health conditions that increased complexity of care, interactions and experiences in the health care system, COVID-19's proliferation into other areas of life, the psychological well-being of the patient-caregiver dyad, experience of support from the dyad's network, the role of caregiving in the dyad, and contextual circumstances of the dyad. The themes often included both barriers and facilitators, depending on the experience of the dyad (eg, feeling encouraged vs fatigued by their support network)., Conclusions: Understanding how patients with COVID-19 and their caregivers experience illness management across the recovery journey can help clarify the COVID-19 care-giving process and identify intervention targets to improve overall health and well-being of the care dyad., (©2023 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Importance: Despite growing evidence of persistent problems after acute COVID-19, how long the excess mortality risk associated with COVID-19 persists is unknown., Objective: To measure the time course of differential mortality among Veterans who had a first-documented COVID-19 infection by separately assessing acute mortality from later mortality among matched groups with infected and uninfected individuals who survived and were uncensored at the start of each period., Design, Settings, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used prospectively collected health record data from Veterans Affairs hospitals across the US on Veterans who had COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2021. Each individual was matched with up to 5 comparators who had not been infected with COVID-19 at the time of matching. This match balanced, on a month-by-month basis, the risk of developing COVID-19 using 37 variables measured in the 24 months before the date of the infection or match. A primary analysis censored comparators when they developed COVID-19 with inverse probability of censoring weighting in Cox regression. A secondary analysis did not censor. Data analyses were performed from April 2021 through June 2023., Exposure: First-documented case of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection., Main Outcome Measures: Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality at clinically meaningful intervals after infection: 0 to 90, 91 to 180, 181 to 365, and 366 to 730 days., Results: The study sample comprised 208 061 Veterans with first-documented COVID-19 infection (mean [SD] age, 60.5 (16.2) years; 21 936 (10.5) women; 47 645 [22.9] Black and 139 604 [67.1] White individuals) and 1 037 423 matched uninfected comparators with similar characteristics. Veterans with COVID-19 had an unadjusted mortality rate of 8.7% during the 2-year period after the initial infection compared with 4.1% among uninfected comparators, with censoring if the comparator later developed COVID-19-an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 2.01 (95% CI, 1.98-2.04). The risk of excess death varied, being highest during days 0 to 90 after infection (aHR, 6.36; 95% CI, 6.20-6.51) and still elevated during days 91 to 180 (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.23). Those who survived COVID-19 had decreased mortality on days 181 to 365 (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95) and 366 to 730 (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92). These patterns were consistent across sensitivity analyses., Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this retrospective cohort study indicate that although overall 2-year mortality risk was worse among those infected with COVID-19, by day 180 after infection they had no excess mortality during the next 1.5 years.

Background: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months., Methods: This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively., Findings: Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85)., Conclusion: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms)., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Many pulse oximeters have been shown to overestimate oxygen saturation in persons of color, and this phenomenon has potential clinical implications. The relationship between overestimation of oxygen saturation with timing of COVID-19 medication delivery and clinical outcomes remains unknown., Objective: To investigate the association between overestimation of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry and delay in administration of COVID-19 therapy, hospital length of stay, risk of hospital readmission, and in-hospital mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 186 acute care facilities in the US with at least 1 functional arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) measurement between March 2020 and October 2021. A subset of patients were admitted after July 1, 2020, without immediate need for COVID-19 therapy based on pulse oximeter saturation (SpO2 levels of 94% or higher without supplemental oxygen)., Exposures: Self-reported race and ethnicity, difference between concurrent SaO2 and pulse oximeter saturation (SpO2) within 10 minutes, and initially unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy (first SaO2 reading below 94% despite SpO2 levels of 94% or above)., Main Outcome and Measures: The association of race and ethnicity with degree of pulse oximeter measurement error (SpO2 - SaO2) and odds of unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy were determined using linear mixed-effects models. Associations of initially unrecognized need for treatment with time to receipt of therapy (remdesivir or dexamethasone), in-hospital mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and length of stay were evaluated using mixed-effects models. All models accounted for demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital site. Effect modification by race and ethnicity was evaluated using interaction terms., Results: Among 24 504 patients with concurrent SpO2 and SaO2 measurements (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [15.8] years; 10 263 female [41.9%]; 3922 Black [16.0%], 7895 Hispanic [32.2%], 2554 Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or another race or ethnicity [10.4%], and 10 133 White [41.4%]), pulse oximetry overestimated SaO2 for Black (adjusted mean difference, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.12] percentage points), Hispanic (0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.63] percentage points), and other (0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72] percentage points) patients compared with White patients. In a subset of 8635 patients with a concurrent SpO2 - SaO2 pair without immediate need for COVID-19 therapy, Black patients were significantly more likely to have pulse oximetry values that masked an indication for COVID-19 therapy compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03). Patients with an unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy were 10% less likely to receive COVID-19 therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97) and higher odds of readmission (aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.39-4.18) regardless of race (P for interaction = .45 and P = .14, respectively). There was no association of unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy with in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01) or length of stay (mean difference, -1.4 days; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.2 days)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, overestimation of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry led to delayed delivery of COVID-19 therapy and higher probability of readmission regardless of race. Black patients were more likely to have unrecognized need for therapy with potential implications for population-level health disparities.

Background: Information about the effectiveness of oral antivirals in preventing short- and long-term COVID-19-related outcomes in the setting of Omicron variant transmission and COVID-19 vaccination is limited., Objective: To measure the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir for outpatient treatment of COVID-19., Design: Three retrospective target trial emulation studies comparing matched cohorts of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment, molnupiravir versus no treatment, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus molnupiravir., Setting: Veterans Health Administration (VHA)., Participants: Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022., Intervention: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir pharmacotherapy., Measurements: Incidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days and from 31 to 180 days., Results: Eighty-seven percent of participants were male; the median age was 66 years, and 18% were unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated control participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir ( n  = 9607) had lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (22.07 vs. 30.32 per 1000 participants; risk difference [RD], -8.25 [95% CI, -12.27 to -4.23] per 1000 participants) and death (1.25 vs. 5.47 per 1000 participants; RD, -4.22 [CI, -5.45 to -3.00] per 1000 participants). Among persons alive at day 31, reductions were seen in 31- to 180-day incidence of death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.49 to 0.89]) but not hospitalization (subhazard ratio, 0.90 [CI, 0.79 to 1.02]). Molnupiravir-treated participants ( n  = 3504) had lower 30-day and 31- to 180-day risks for death (3.14 vs. 13.56 per 1000 participants at 30 days; RD, -10.42 [CI, -13.49 to -7.35] per 1000 participants; hazard ratio at 31 to 180 days, 0.67 [CI, 0.48 to 0.95]) but not hospitalization. A difference in 30-day or 31- to 180-day risk for hospitalization or death was not observed between matched nirmatrelvir- or molnupiravir-treated participants., Limitation: The date of COVID-19 symptom onset for most veterans was unknown., Conclusion: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death. Molnupiravir was associated with a benefit for 30-day mortality but not hospitalization. Further reductions in mortality from 31 to 180 days were observed with both antivirals., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-3565.

Objectives: To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance., Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: US Veterans Affairs healthcare system., Participants: Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male., Interventions: Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson))., Main Outcome Measures: Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2., Results: In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42)., Conclusions: In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work but no financial relationship with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Adverse financial outcomes after COVID-19 infection and hospitalization have not been assessed with appropriate comparators to account for other financial disruptions of 2020-2021. Using credit report data from 132,109 commercially insured COVID-19 survivors, we compared the rates of adverse financial outcomes for two cohorts of individuals with credit outcomes measured before and after COVID-19 infection, using an interaction term between cohort and hospitalization to test whether adverse credit outcomes changed more for hospitalized than nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients. Covariates included age group, gender, and several area-level social determinants of health. Adverse financial outcomes were significantly more common after COVID-19 infection than before COVID-19 infection, with greater increases among those hospitalized with COVID-19 (5-8 percentage points) than among nonhospitalized patients (1-3 percentage points). Future work examining longitudinal financial outcomes before and after COVID-19 infection is needed to determine the causal mechanisms of this association to reduce financial hardship from COVID-19 and other conditions., (© 2023 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Background: Understanding how SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts long-term patient outcomes requires identification of comparable persons with and without infection. We report the design and implementation of a matching strategy employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) COVID-19 Observational Research Collaboratory (CORC) to develop comparable cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected persons for the purpose of inferring potential causative long-term adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Veteran population., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, we identified VA health care system patients who were and were not infected with SARS-CoV-2 on a rolling monthly basis. We generated matched cohorts within each month utilizing a combination of exact and time-varying propensity score matching based on electronic health record (EHR)-derived covariates that can be confounders or risk factors across a range of outcomes., Results: From an initial pool of 126,689,864 person-months of observation, we generated final matched cohorts of 208,536 Veterans infected between March 2020-April 2021 and 3,014,091 uninfected Veterans. Matched cohorts were well-balanced on all 39 covariates used in matching after excluding patients for: no VA health care utilization; implausible age, weight, or height; living outside of the 50 states or Washington, D.C.; prior SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis per Medicare claims; or lack of a suitable match. Most Veterans in the matched cohort were male (88.3%), non-Hispanic (87.1%), white (67.2%), and living in urban areas (71.5%), with a mean age of 60.6, BMI of 31.3, Gagne comorbidity score of 1.4 and a mean of 2.3 CDC high-risk conditions. The most common diagnoses were hypertension (61.4%), diabetes (34.3%), major depression (32.2%), coronary heart disease (28.5%), PTSD (25.5%), anxiety (22.5%), and chronic kidney disease (22.5%)., Conclusion: This successful creation of matched SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected patient cohorts from the largest integrated health system in the United States will support cohort studies of outcomes derived from EHRs and sample selection for qualitative interviews and patient surveys. These studies will increase our understanding of the long-term outcomes of Veterans who were infected with SARS-CoV-2., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Importance: COVID-19 vaccination rates remain suboptimal in the US. Identifying factors associated with vaccination can highlight existing gaps and guide targeted interventions to improve vaccination access and uptake., Objective: To describe incidence and patient characteristics associated with primary, first booster, and second booster COVID-19 vaccination in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed US veterans receiving care in VHA medical centers and outpatient clinics as of December 1, 2020. All VHA enrollees with an inpatient, outpatient, or telehealth encounter in VHA as well as a primary care physician appointment in the preceding 24 months were included., Exposures: Demographic characteristics, place of residence, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and underlying medical conditions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative incidence of primary, first booster, and second booster COVID-19 vaccination through June 2022. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify factors independently associated with COVID-19 vaccination., Results: Among 5 632 413 veterans included in the study, 5 094 392 (90.4%) were male, the median (IQR) age was 66 (51-74) years, 1 032 334 (18.3%) were Black, 448 714 (8.0%) were Hispanic, and 4 202 173 (74.6%) were White. Through June 2022, cumulative incidences were 69.0% for primary vaccination, 42.9% for first booster, and 9.3% for second booster. Cumulative incidence for primary vaccination increased with increasing age, from 46.9% (95% CI, 46.8%-47.0%) among veterans aged 18 to 49 years to 82.9% (95% CI, 82.8%-83.0%) among veterans aged 80 to 84 years. More Black veterans completed primary vaccination (71.7%; 95% CI, 71.6%-71.8%) compared with White veterans (68.9%; 95% CI, 68.9%-69.0%), and more urban-dwelling veterans completed primary vaccination (70.9%; 95% CI, 70.9%-71.0%) compared with highly rural-dwelling veterans (63.8%; 95% CI, 63.4%-64.1%). Factors independently associated with higher likelihood of both primary and booster vaccination included older age, female sex, Asian or Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, urban residence, and lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US veterans, COVID-19 vaccination coverage through June 2022 was suboptimal. Primary vaccination can be improved among younger, rural-dwelling veterans. Greater uptake of booster vaccination among all veterans is needed.

Importance: Individuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited., Objective: To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19-related hospitalization., Design, Setting, and Participants: A national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022., Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test., Main Outcomes and Measures: New or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months., Results: A total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

Background: The effectiveness of a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose (booster dose) against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant is uncertain, especially in older, high-risk populations., Objective: To determine mRNA booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death in the Omicron era by booster type, primary vaccine type, time since primary vaccination, age, and comorbidity burden., Design: Retrospective matched cohort study designed to emulate a target trial of booster vaccination versus no booster, conducted from 1 December 2021 to 31 March 2022., Setting: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care system., Participants: Persons who had received 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses at least 5 months earlier., Intervention: Booster monovalent mRNA vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 or Moderna's mRNA-1273) versus no booster., Measurements: Booster VE., Results: Each group included 490 838 well-matched persons, who were predominantly male (88%), had a mean age of 63.0 years (SD, 14.0), and were followed for up to 121 days (mean, 79.8 days). Booster VE more than 10 days after a booster dose was 42.3% (95% CI, 40.6% to 43.9%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 53.3% (CI, 48.1% to 58.0%) against SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization, and 79.1% (CI, 71.2% to 84.9%) against SARS-CoV-2-related death. Booster VE was similar for different booster types (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), age groups, and primary vaccination regimens but was significantly higher with longer time since primary vaccination and higher comorbidity burden., Limitation: Predominantly male population., Conclusion: Booster mRNA vaccination was highly effective in preventing death and moderately effective in preventing infection and hospitalization for up to 4 months after administration in the Omicron era. Increased uptake of booster vaccination, which is currently suboptimal, should be pursued to limit the morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in persons with high comorbidity burden., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and its long-term outcomes may be jointly caused by a wide range of clinical, social, and economic characteristics. Studies aiming to identify mechanisms for SARS-CoV-2 morbidity and mortality must measure and account for these characteristics to arrive at unbiased, accurate conclusions. We sought to inform the design, measurement, and analysis of longitudinal studies of long-term outcomes among people infected with SARS-CoV-2. We fielded a survey to an interprofessional group of clinicians and scientists to identify factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent outcomes. Using an iterative process, we refined the resulting list of factors into a consensus causal diagram relating infection and 12-month mortality. Finally, we operationalized concepts from the causal diagram into minimally sufficient adjustment sets using common medical record data elements. Total 31 investigators identified 49 potential risk factors for and 72 potential consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 were grouped into five domains: demographics, physical health, mental health, personal social, and economic factors, and external social and economic factors. Consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were grouped into clinical consequences, social consequences, and economic consequences. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection were developed into a consensus directed acyclic graph for mortality that included two minimally sufficient adjustment sets. We present a collectively developed and iteratively refined list of data elements for observational research in SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease. By accounting for these elements, studies aimed at identifying causal pathways for long-term outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be made more informative., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Rationale: There are limited data on the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on intensive care unit (ICU) recovery clinic care delivery practices. Objectives: We sought to better understand the patient-level factors affecting ICU recovery clinic care and changing clinical thinking during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also sought to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic sparked innovation within ICU recovery clinics. Methods: A multicenter qualitative study was conducted with ICU recovery clinic interprofessional clinicians involved with the Critical and Acute Illness Recovery Organization (CAIRO) between February and March 2021. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Key themes were organized in a working analytical framework. Results: Twenty-nine participants from 15 international sites participated in the study. Participants identified three patient-level key themes that influenced care delivery in ICU recovery programs: 1 ) social isolation, 2 ) decreased emotional reserve in patients and families, and 3 ) substantial social care needs. Changes in ICU recovery clinic care delivery occurred at both the clinician level (e.g., growing awareness of healthcare disparities and inequities, recognition of financial effects of illness, refinement of communication skills, increased focus on reconstructing the illness narrative) and the practice level (e.g., expansion of care delivery modes, efforts to integrate social care) in response to each of the patient-level themes. Identified gaps in ICU recovery clinic care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic included a need for multidisciplinary team members, access to care issues (e.g., digital poverty, health insurance coverage, language barriers), and altered family engagement. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that addressing patient-level factors such as efforts to integrate social care, address financial needs, refine provider communication skills (e.g., empathic listening), and enhance focus on reconstructing the illness narrative became important priorities during the ICU recovery clinic visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also identified several ongoing gaps in ICU recovery clinic care delivery that highlight the need for interventions focused on the integration of social and clinic services for critical care survivors.

Importance: There is increasing recognition of the long-term health effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection (sometimes called long COVID). However, little is yet known about the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID within health systems., Objective: To describe dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID in the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients with a diagnostic code for this condition (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code U09.9)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative analysis used data from EHRs of a national random sample of 200 patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with documentation of a positive result on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021, and an ICD-10 diagnostic code for long COVID between October 1, 2021, when the code was implemented, and March 1, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 5 to May 31, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: A text word search and qualitative analysis of patients' VA-wide EHRs was performed to identify dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID., Results: In this qualitative analysis of documentation in the VA-wide EHR, the mean (SD) age of the 200 sampled patients at the time of their first positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 in VA records was 60 (14.5) years. The sample included 173 (86.5%) men; 45 individuals (22.5%) were identified as Black and 136 individuals (68.0%) were identified as White. In qualitative analysis of documentation pertaining to long COVID in patients' EHRs 2 dominant themes were identified: (1) clinical uncertainty, in that it was often unclear whether particular symptoms could be attributed to long COVID, given the medical complexity and functional limitations of many patients and absence of specific markers for this condition, which could lead to ongoing monitoring, diagnostic testing, and specialist referral; and (2) care fragmentation, describing how post-COVID-19 care processes were often siloed from and poorly coordinated with other aspects of care and could be burdensome to patients., Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of documentation in the VA EHR highlights the complexity of diagnosing long COVID in clinical settings and the challenges of caring for patients who have or are suspected of having this condition.

Importance: Some persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience symptoms or impairments many months after acute infection., Objectives: To determine the rates, clinical setting, and factors associated with documented receipt of COVID-19-related care 3 or more months after acute infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Participants included persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, who were still alive 3 months after infection and did not have evidence of reinfection. Data analysis was performed from February 2020 to December 2021., Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 test., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates and factors associated with documentation of COVID-19-related International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes (U07.1, Z86.16, U09.9, and J12.82) 3 or more months after acute infection (hereafter, long-COVID care), with follow-up extending to December 31, 2021., Results: Among 198 601 SARS-CoV-2-positive persons included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 60.4 (17.7) years, 176 942 individuals (89.1%) were male, 133 924 (67.4%) were White, 44 733 (22.5%) were Black, and 19 735 (9.9%) were Hispanic. During a mean (SD) follow-up of 13.5 (3.6) months, long-COVID care was documented in a wide variety of clinics, most commonly primary care and general internal medicine (18 634 of 56 310 encounters [33.1%]), pulmonary (7360 of 56 310 encounters [13.1%]), and geriatrics (5454 of 56 310 encounters [9.7%]). Long-COVID care was documented in 26 745 cohort members (13.5%), with great variability across geographical regions (range, 10.8%-18.1%) and medical centers (range, 3.0%-41.0%). Factors significantly associated with documented long-COVID care included older age, Black or American Indian/Alaska Native race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, having documented symptoms at the time of acute infection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.65-1.78) and requiring hospitalization (AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.51-2.69) or mechanical ventilation (AOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.26-2.69). Patients who were fully vaccinated at the time of infection were less likely to receive long-COVID care (AOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90)., Conclusions and Relevance: Long-COVID care was documented in a variety of clinical settings, with great variability across regions and medical centers and was documented more commonly in older persons, those with higher comorbidity burden, those with more severe acute COVID-19 presentation and those who were unvaccinated at the time of infection. These findings provide support and guidance for health care systems to develop systematic approaches to the evaluation and management of patients who may be experiencing long COVID.

Background: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation., Objective: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020., Results: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services., Conclusions: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge., (©2022 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: We examined whether key sociodemographic and clinical risk factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and mortality changed over time in a population-based cohort study., Methods and Findings: In a cohort of 9,127,673 persons enrolled in the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we evaluated the independent associations of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 216,046), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality (n = 10,230), and case fatality at monthly intervals between February 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. VA enrollees had a mean age of 61 years (SD 17.7) and were predominantly male (90.9%) and White (64.5%), with 14.6% of Black race and 6.3% of Hispanic ethnicity. Black (versus White) race was strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 5.10, [95% CI 4.65 to 5.59], p-value <0.001), mortality (AOR 3.85 [95% CI 3.30 to 4.50], p-value < 0.001), and case fatality (AOR 2.56, 95% CI 2.23 to 2.93, p-value < 0.001) in February to March 2020, but these associations were attenuated and not statistically significant by November 2020 for infection (AOR 1.03 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.07] p-value = 0.05) and mortality (AOR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.20], p-value = 0.21) and were reversed for case fatality (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, p-value = 0.005). American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN versus White) race was associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in April and May 2020; this association declined over time and reversed by March 2021 (AOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85] p-value = 0.004). Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic) ethnicity was associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality during almost every time period, with no evidence of attenuation over time. Urban (versus rural) residence was associated with higher risk of infection (AOR 2.02, [95% CI 1.83 to 2.22], p-value < 0.001), mortality (AOR 2.48 [95% CI 2.08 to 2.96], p-value < 0.001), and case fatality (AOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.60, p-value < 0.001) in February to April 2020, but these associations attenuated over time and reversed by September 2020 (AOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89, p-value < 0.001 for infection, AOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, p-value < 0.001 for mortality and AOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93, p-value = 0.006 for case fatality). Throughout the observation period, high comorbidity burden, younger age, and obesity were consistently associated with infection, while high comorbidity burden, older age, and male sex were consistently associated with mortality. Limitations of the study include that changes over time in the associations of some risk factors may be affected by changes in the likelihood of testing for SARS-CoV-2 according to those risk factors; also, study results apply directly to VA enrollees who are predominantly male and have comprehensive healthcare and need to be confirmed in other populations., Conclusions: In this study, we found that strongly positive associations of Black and AI/AN (versus White) race and urban (versus rural) residence with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mortality, and case fatality observed early in the pandemic were ameliorated or reversed by March 2021., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: DH reported that she is an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The remaining authors have declared no competing interests exist.

Background: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date., Methods: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups., Findings: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73])., Interpretation: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RPB is the ELSO Registry chair. GM, MLP, CMS, and DB are on the ELSO board of directors. MLP is the current president of ELSO and DB is the president-elect of ELSO. DB also chairs the executive committee for the International ECMO Network. PSB has received funding from ELSO for statistical analysis related and unrelated to this study. CMS receives payment from ELSO in her role as chief executive officer of ELSO. RPB, CA, and EF are members of the ELSO Steering Committee. RL and AC are past members of the European ELSO Steering Committee. ASS chairs the Scientific Oversight Committee of the International ECMO Network. RPB reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health (R01 HL153519, R01 HD015434, and K12 HL138039). AC reports speaking fees from Baxter, Getinge, and Fresenius, unrelated to the submitted work. EF reports consulting fees from ALung Technologies and Vasomune; speaking fees from Getinge; and fees for Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board participation from Baxter and Boehringer-Ingelheim. KH reports unpaid consulting work with Abbott Vascular. RL reports research support from Getinge; consulting fees from Getinge, Livanova, and Medtronic; and honoraria for lectures from Getinge and Livanova, unrelated to the submitted work. TJI is employed by the US Government. ASS reports consulting fees from Baxter and Xenios, unrelated to the submitted work. DB reports grants from ALung Technologies, and medical advisory board relationships with Baxter (past), Xenios, Abiomed, Cellenkos, Medtronic, and Hemovent, unrelated to the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine visitor guidelines among children's hospitals in the United States in response to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods: A retrospective assessment of visitor guidelines in 239 children's hospitals in the United States., Results: In this study, we present an analysis of 239 children's hospital visitor guidelines posted to hospitals' Web sites during 1 week in June 2020. Of the 239 hospitals, only 28 did not have posted guidelines for review. The guidelines were analyzed and grouped by how the guidelines were updated in response to COVID-19. Parental visitation was restricted to 1 parent in 116 of the posted guidelines (49%). There were no obvious similarities among guidelines associated with their geographical (eg, state or local) location. As of February 2021, 33 of 55 (60%) randomly selected hospitals had not changed their visitor policy since our initial review., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered changes in publicly reported visitor guidelines across the majority of children's hospitals. With our findings, we suggest wide variation in policies and practices in how guidelines were updated. More work is needed to understand how to optimize public safety and preserve family-centered care and parental authority in times of crisis., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Survivors of severe COVID-19 are at risk of impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and persistent physical and psychological disability after ICU and hospital discharge. The subsequent social burden is a major concern. We aimed to assess the short-term HRQoL, physical function and prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms of invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated in our ICU. Methods: Prospective, observational cohort study in a follow-up clinic. Patients completed a 6-min walking test (6MWT) to assess their cardio-pulmonary function around 2 months (early follow-up) from hospital discharge, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire for quality of life assessment around 2 months and at 6 months from hospital discharge and an anonymous web-based Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) questionnaire for Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms at 2 months. Results: 47 patients attended our follow-up program, mean age 59 ± 10 years, median pre-morbid Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 2 [2–3]. The median distance walked in 6 min was 470 [406–516] m, 83 [67–99]% of the predicted value. Overall 1 out 3 patients and 4/18 (22%) among those with a good functional baseline prior to COVID-19 (CFS of 1 or 2) had lower (84%) than predicted 6MWT. EQ-5D-5L quality of life VAS was 80 [70–90] out of 100 at early follow-up with a slight improvement to 85 [77.5–90] at 6 months. Mobility, self-care and usual activities improved between the two timepoints, while pain/discomfort and depression/anxiety did not improve or got worse. The IES-R total score was greater than the threshold for concern of 1.6 in 27/41(66%) respondents. Conclusions: Patients recovering from severe COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation surviving hospital discharge present with early mild to moderate functional impairment, mildly reduced quality of life from hospital discharge with an overall improvement of mobility, self-care and the ability of performing usual activities, while a worsening of pain and depression/anxiety symptoms at 6 months and a large proportion of symptoms of post-traumatic distress soon after hospital discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date.Methods: We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality.Findings: Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4-40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20-2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6-41·5).Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]