Search

Nursing professional organizations and media sources indicated early in the pandemic that the physical and psychological effects of COVID-19 might be distinct and possibly greater in nurses than in other types of healthcare workers (HCWs).Based on survey data collected in Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO), a national registry of U.S. HCWs, this study compared the self-reported experiences of nurses with other HCWs during the first 13 months of the pandemic.Nurse responses were compared to responses of nonnurse HCWs in terms of viral exposure, testing and infection, access to personal protective equipment (PPE), burnout, and well-being. Logistic regression models were used to examine associations between nurse and nonnurse roles for the binary end points of viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19. We also examined differences by race/ethnicity and high-risk versus low-risk practice settings.Of 24,343 HCWs in the registry, one third self-identified as nurses. Nurses were more likely than other HCWs to report exposure to SARS-CoV-2, problems accessing PPE, and decreased personal well-being, including burnout, feeling tired, stress, trouble sleeping, and worry. In adjusted models, nurses were more likely than nonnurse HCWs to report viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19 infection. Nurses in high-risk settings were more likely to report viral exposure and symptoms related to well-being; nurses in low-risk settings were more likely to report viral testing and test positivity. Black or Hispanic nurses were most likely to report test positivity.Differences were identified between nurses and nonnurse HCWs in access to PPE, physical and mental well-being measures, and likelihood of reporting exposure and infection. Among nurses, testing and infection differed based on race and ethnicity, and type of work setting. Our findings suggest further research and policy are needed to elucidate and address social and occupational disparities.

ImportanceLimited effective therapeutics are available to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinical trials and observational studies have shown varying effects of systemic corticosteroids, including dexamethasone, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with limited descriptions of important patient subgroups.ObjectiveTo examine the clinical use of dexamethasone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 respiratory illness and to explore the heterogeneity of treatment outcomes across different subgroups.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a retrospective, propensity score–weighted cohort study of adult patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours for COVID-19 respiratory illness between July 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, at a large health care network of 156 hospitals across the US. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresSystemic dexamethasone administered within 48 hours of either admission or escalation in oxygen support.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAll-cause in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice.ResultsA total of 80 699 patients who met the eligibility criteria were identified (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-76] years; 37 606 women [46.6%]); 13 230 patients (16.4%) identified as Black, 49 222 (60.9%) as White, 18 247 (22.6%) as other race, and 20 340 (25.2%) as Hispanic ethnicity. Of these patients, 13 040 (16.2%) did not require supplemental oxygen within 48 hours of admission, 56 368 (69.8%) required supplemental oxygen, 7618 (9.4%) required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and 3673 (4.6%) required mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). After adjustment by propensity score overlap weighting, early use of dexamethasone was associated with reduction in a composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice for patients receiving supplemental oxygen (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) and MV and/or ECMO (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99). In contrast, all-cause inpatient mortality or discharge to hospice was not lower for patients who received dexamethasone in the no supplemental oxygen group (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.03) and in the NIPPV group (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04). Importantly, patients with more comorbidities had greater benefit from dexamethasone use.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this national multicenter cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19, early administration of dexamethasone was associated with significantly reduced odds of mortality or discharge to hospice in those requiring supplemental oxygen or MV and/or ECMO but not in those requiring no supplemental oxygen or NIPPV. These results support the continued use of systemic dexamethasone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND The use of apixaban instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) as well as dropping aspirin results in less bleeding and comparable ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor. OBJECTIVES The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens according to HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores in AUGUSTUS (The Open-Label, 2 × 2 Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin vs. Placebo in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). METHODS In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients were randomized in a 2-by-2 factorial design to open-label apixaban or VKA and blinded aspirin or placebo. The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding over 6 months of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess treatment effects by baseline HAS-BLED (≤2 vs ≥3) and CHA2DS2-VASc (≤2 vs ≥3) scores. RESULTS Of 4,386 (95.1%) patients with calculable scores, 66.8% had HAS-BLED ≥3 and 81.7% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3. Bleeding rates were lower with apixaban than VKA irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.78 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.88 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.23). Aspirin increased bleeding irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.36-2.56 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.47-2.23 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.88). Apixaban resulted in a lower risk of death or hospitalization than VKA without a significant interaction with baseline stroke risk (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.25 [CHA2DS2-VASc ≤2]; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94 [CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3]; interaction P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS Our findings support the use of apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin for most patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention, irrespective of a patient's baseline bleeding and stroke risk (NCT02415400).

Background: Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvements in left ventricular EF (LVEF) are associated with better outcomes in select populations. How changes in LVEF are associated with outcomes in routine clinical practice is not clearly defined. Methods: CHAMP-HF was a prospective registry of US outpatients with HF and an LVEF < 40%. Enrolled patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 12-item questionnaire (KCCQ-12) at regular intervals and were followed as part of routine care for assessments of LVEF and clinical outcomes. We analyzed all patients with baseline and > 1 LVEF assessment during follow-up, and we assessed for associations between improvements in LVEF ( > 5%) over time and concurrent changes in KCCQ-12 and subsequent risk of HF hospitalization or all-cause death. Results: Among patients enrolled in CHAMP-HF, 2092 had a baseline and follow-up LVEF assessment. The median age was 67 years (25 th , 75 th percentile 58, 75), 29% were female, 64% had concomitant coronary disease, and the median duration of HF was 2.7 years (0.6, 6.8). The median baseline LVEF was 30% (23, 35) and 1032 (49%) patients had a > 5% improvement in LVEF over time. Patients that had an improvement in LVEF over time had a significant simultaneous improvement in KCCQ-12 overall summary score compared with patients with no improvement (change from baseline: +6.8 vs +3.0, adjusted effect estimate 3.8 [95% CI 1.8 to 5.7]) ( Table ). Similarly, subsequent HF hospitalization or all-cause death occurred in 14% in the LVEF improvement group vs 27% in the no LVEF improvement group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63). Conclusions: In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HFrEF, improvements in LVEF were common and associated with improvements in health status and clinical outcomes. These data underscore the importance of changes in LVEF as a treatment target for medical interventions for patients with chronic HFrEF.

The extent to which healthcare worker (HCWs) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by race or ethnicity after adjustment for confounding factors is not currently known.We performed an observational prospective cohort study of 24,769 healthcare workers from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, enrolled between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2021, and evaluated participant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including testing, diagnosis with COVID-19, emotional experiences, burnout, and interest in vaccines and vaccine clinical trials.After adjustment for professional role, medical history, and community characteristics, Black and Asian participants were less likely to receive SARS-CoV-2 viral testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·82 [0·70, 0·96], p=0·012 and aOR 0·77 [0·67, 0·89], p0·001 respectively) than White participants. Hispanic participants were more likely to have evidence of COVID-19 infection (aOR 1·23 (1·00, 1·50, p=0·048). Black and Asian participants were less likely to report interest in a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 0·11 [0·05, 0·25], p0·001 and aOR 0·48 [0·27, 0·85] p=0·012). Black participants were less likely to report interest in participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (aOR = 0·39 [0·28, 0·54], p0·001). Black participants were also less likely to report 3 or more daily emotional impacts of COVID-19 (aOR = 0·66 [0·53, 0·82], p=0·001). Black participants were additionally less likely to report burnout (aOR = 0·66 ([0·49, 0·95], p=0·025).In a large, national study of healthcare workers, after adjustment for individual and community characteristics, race/ethnicity disparities in COVID-19 outcomes persist. Future work is urgently needed to understand precise mechanisms behind these disparities and to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve health equity for healthcare workers.This work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Contract # COVID-19-2020-001.

Propensity score weighting is an important tool for comparative effectiveness research.Besides the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPW), recent development has introduced a general class of balancing weights, corresponding to alternative target populations and estimands. In particular, the overlap weights (OW) lead to optimal covariate balance and estimation efficiency, and a target population of scientific and policy interest. We develop the R package PSweight to provide a comprehensive design and analysis platform for causal inference based on propensity score weighting. PSweight supports (i) a variety of balancing weights, (ii) binary and multiple treatments,(iii) simple and augmented weighting estimators, (iv) nuisance-adjusted sandwich variances, and(v) ratio estimands. PSweight also provides diagnostic tables and graphs for covariate balance assessment. We demonstrate the functionality of the package using a data example from the NationalChild Development Survey (NCDS), where we evaluate the causal effect of educational attainment on income., Comment: 18 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables

The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies.Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF.Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status.Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%); insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), β-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p 0.001).Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

Introduction: Randomized trials have not demonstrated significant differences in stroke, heart failure or mortality between rhythm and rate control strategies for management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The comparative outcomes in contemporary clinical practice are not well described. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in clinical practice with rhythm control versus rate control strategy. Methods: Patients managed with a rhythm control strategy targeting maintenance of sinus rhythm were retrospectively compared with a strategy of rate control alone in a AF registry across various US practice settings. Unadjusted and adjusted (inverse-propensity weighted) outcomes were estimated. Results: The overall study population (n=6988) had a median age of 74 (25th, 75th percentile 65, 81) years, 56% were males, 77% had first detected or paroxysmal AF and 89% had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. In unadjusted analyses, rhythm control was associated with lower all-cause death, cardiovascular death, first stroke/non-central nervous system systemic embolization/transient ischemic attack, or first major bleeding event (all p Conclusion: Among patients with AF in clinical practice, rhythm control was not superior to rate control strategy for outcomes of stroke, heart failure, or mortality, but was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or no previous revascularization undergoing primary PCI.Limited data exist regarding door-to-balloon times and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients with a history of CABG or PCI undergoing primary PCI.We examined 15,628 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI at 297 sites in the United States. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to compare door-to-balloon time delays90 min and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).Patients with previous CABG were significantly older and more likely to have multiple comorbidities (p0.0001). Previous CABG was associated with a lower likelihood of a door-to-balloon time ≤90 min compared with patients with no previous revascularization. However, no significant differences in door-to-balloon times were noted between patients with previous PCI and those without previous revascularization. The unadjusted MACCE risk was significantly higher in patients with a history of CABG compared with patients without previous revascularization (odds ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.31). However, after multivariable risk adjustment, there were no significant differences in MACCE risk between the 2 groups. No significant differences in in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a previous PCI and those without previous revascularization.In a large cohort of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, patients with previous CABG were more likely to have reperfusion delays, yet risk-adjusted, in-hospital outcomes were similar to those without previous revascularization. No significant differences in reperfusion timeliness and in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a history of PCI compared with patients without previous revascularization.

The study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in clinical practice with rhythm control versus rate control strategy for management of atrial fibrillation (AF).Randomized trials have not demonstrated significant differences in stroke, heart failure, or mortality between rhythm and rate control strategies. The comparative outcomes in contemporary clinical practice are not well described.Patients managed with a rhythm control strategy targeting maintenance of sinus rhythm were retrospectively compared with a strategy of rate control alone in a AF registry across various U.S. practice settings. Unadjusted and adjusted (inverse-propensity weighted) outcomes were estimated.The overall study population (N = 6,988) had a median of 74 (65 to 81) years of age, 56% were males, 77% had first detected or paroxysmal AF, and 68% had CHADSAmong patients with AF, rhythm control was not superior to rate control strategy for outcomes of stroke, heart failure, or mortality, but was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations.