BACKGROUND:A retrospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the relationship between initial disease severity of COVID-19 and the risk of post-acute symptoms. The COVID-19 cohort was compared against influenza and pneumonia cohorts to assess whether risk of post-acute symptoms differed. METHODS:Administrative health claims data were obtained for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage covered adults (≥ 18 years) with symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed in 2020 (n=121,205), and similar cohorts of influenza (n=20,844) and pneumonia (n=29,052) patients diagnosed prior to the pandemic. Post-acute symptoms were assessed at four weeks, three and six months following initial diagnosis. RESULTS:Among the patients with COVID-19, the likelihood of any post-acute symptom increased with initial disease severity, and was also influenced by the presence of comorbidities, especially rheumatoid arthritis, ischemic heart disease and asthma. The specific post-acute symptoms varied by age, with increased risks of anxiety and headache among the young, whereas the elderly experienced increased brain fog and fatigue. When compared against the influenza and pneumonia cohorts, all three groups experienced post-acute symptoms, with a strong relationship to disease severity, and only partial resolution over the six-month observation period. Those with influenza were less likely than those with COVID-19 to experience post-acute symptoms while those with pneumonia were more likely to have post-acute illness than those with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS:Using a large national dataset, we found that COVID-19 symptomology could not be described by previously seen influenza or pneumonia symptomology and differences exist in the prevalence of symptoms as well as time to resolution, better characterizing "long COVID" and identifying that these differences are unique to COVID-19.

ImportanceWith more than 6.2 million hospitalizations due to COVID-19 in the US, recognition of the average hospital costs to provide inpatient care during the pandemic is necessary to understanding the national medical resource use and improving public health readiness and related policies.ObjectiveTo examine the mean cost to provide inpatient care to treat COVID-19 and how it varied through the pandemic waves and by important sociodemographic patient characteristics.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used inpatient-level data from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022, extracted from a repository of clinical, administrative, and financial information covering 97% of academic medical centers across the US.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCost to produce care for each stay was calculated using direct hospital costs to provide care adjusted for geographic differences in labor costs using area wage indices.ResultsThe sample included 1 333 404 stays with a primary or secondary COVID-19 diagnosis from 841 hospitals. The cohort included 692 550 (52%) men, with mean (SD) age of 59.2 (17.5) years. The adjusted mean cost of an inpatient stay was $11 275 (95% CI, $11 252-$11 297) overall, increasing from $10 394 (95% CI, $10 228-$10 559) at the end of March 2020 to $13 072 (95% CI, $12 528-$13 617) by the end of March 2022. Patients with specific comorbidities had significantly higher mean costs than their counterparts: those with obesity incurred an additional $2924 in inpatient stay costs, and those with coagulation deficiency incurred an additional $3017 in inpatient stay costs. Stays during which the patient required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had an adjusted mean cost of $36 484 (95% CI, $34 685-$38 284).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, an adjusted mean hospital cost to provide care for patients with COVID-19 increased more than 5 times the rate of medical inflation overall. This appeared to be explained partly by changes in the use of ECMO, which increased over time.

ObjectiveTo create and validate a methodology to assign a severity level to an episode of COVID-19 for retrospective analysis in claims data.Data SourceSecondary data obtained by license agreement from Optum provided claims records nationally for 19,761,754 persons, of which, 692,094 persons had COVID-19 in 2020.Study DesignThe World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Progression Scale was used as a model to identify endpoints as measures of episode severity within claims data. Endpoints used included symptoms, respiratory status, progression to levels of treatment and mortality.Data Collection/Extraction methodsThe strategy for identification of cases relied upon the February 2020 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Principal FindingsA total of 709,846 persons (3.6%) met the criteria for one of the nine severity levels based on diagnosis codes with 692,094 having confirmatory diagnoses. The rates for each level varied considerably by age groups, with the older age groups reaching higher severity levels at a higher rate. Mean and median costs increased as severity level increased. Statistical validation of the severity scales revealed that the rates for each level varied considerably by age group, with the older ages reaching higher severity levels (p < 0.001). Other demographic factors such as race and ethnicity, geographic region, and comorbidity count had statistically significant associations with severity level of COVID-19.ConclusionA standardized severity scale for use with claims data will allow researchers to evaluate episodes so that analyses can be conducted on the processes of intervention, effectiveness, efficiencies, costs and outcomes related to COVID-19.

We examined the largest winter surge of 2020-2021 across a national sample of hospitalized patients to determine the risk of death for COVID-19 patients during this time. Results showed a positive association between community surge levels and inpatient mortality. Background Studies of the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic indicate that patient outcomes may be adversely affected by surges. However, the impact on in-hospital mortality during the largest surge to date, September 2020-March 2021, has not been studied. This study aimed to determine whether in-hospital mortality was impacted by the community surge of COVID-19. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of 416 962 adult COVID-19 patients admitted immediately before or during the surge at 229 US academic and 432 community hospitals in the Vizient Clinical Database. The odds ratios (ORs) of death among hospitalized patients during each phase of the surge was compared with the corresponding odds before the surge and adjusted for demographic, comorbidity, hospital characteristic, length of stay, and complication variables. Results The unadjusted proportion of deaths among discharged patients was 9% in both the presurge and rising surge stages but rose to 12% during both the peak and declining surge intervals. With the presurge phase defined as the referent, the risk-adjusted ORs (aORs) for the surge periods were rising, 1.14 (1.10-1.19), peak 1.37 (1.32-1.43), and declining, 1.30 (1.25-1.35). The surge rise in-hospital mortality was present in 7 of 9 geographic divisions and greater for community hospitals than for academic centers. Conclusions These data support public policies aimed at containing pandemic surges and supporting healthcare delivery during surges.

Since the initial COVID-19 cases were identified in the United States in February 2020, the United States has experienced a high incidence of the disease. Understanding the risk factors for severe outcomes identifies the most vulnerable populations and helps in decision-making. This study aims to assess the factors associated with COVID-19–related deaths from a large, national, individual-level data set. A cohort study was conducted using data from the Optum de-identified COVID-19 electronic health record (EHR) data set; 1,271,033 adult participants were observed from February 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020, until their deaths due to COVID-19, deaths due to other reasons, or the end of the study. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the risks for each patient characteristic. A total of 1,271,033 participants (age: mean 52.6, SD 17.9 years; male: 507,574/1,271,033, 39.93%) were included in the study, and 3315 (0.26%) deaths were attributed to COVID-19. Factors associated with COVID-19–related death included older age (80 vs 50-59 years old: hazard ratio [HR] 13.28, 95% CI 11.46-15.39), male sex (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.57-1.80), obesity (BMI 40 vs <30 kg/m2: HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50-1.96), race (Hispanic White, African American, Asian vs non-Hispanic White: HR 2.46, 95% CI 2.01-3.02; HR 2.27, 95% CI 2.06-2.50; HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.65-2.57), region (South, Northeast, Midwest vs West: HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.33-1.98; HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.06-3.03; HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.64), chronic respiratory disease (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.32), cardiac disease (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19), diabetes (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.75-2.10), recent diagnosis of lung cancer (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.14-2.55), severely reduced kidney function (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69-2.19), stroke or dementia (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), other neurological diseases (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.59-1.98), organ transplant (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67), and other immunosuppressive conditions (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). This is one of the largest national cohort studies in the United States; we identified several patient characteristics associated with COVID-19–related deaths, and the results can serve as the basis for policy making. The study also offered directions for future studies, including the effect of other socioeconomic factors on the increased risk for minority groups.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVESDevelop a risk-stratification model that clusters primary care patients with similar co-morbidities and social determinants and ranks 'within-practice' clusters of complex patients based on likelihood of hospital and emergency department (ED) utilization.METHODSA retrospective cohort analysis was performed on 10 408 adults who received their primary care at the Medical University of South Carolina University Internal Medicine clinic. A two-part generalized linear regression model was used to fit a predictive model for ED and hospital utilization. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to identify patient subgroups with similar co-morbidities.RESULTSFactors associated with increased risk of utilization included specific disease clusters {e.g. renal disease cluster [rate ratio, RR = 5.47; 95% confidence interval (CI; 4.54, 6.59) P < 0.0001]}, low clinic visit adherence [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.28, 0.39) P < 0.0001] and census measure of high poverty rate [RR = 1.20; 95% CI (1.11, 1.28) P < 0.0001]. In the cluster model, a stable group of four clusters remained regardless of the number of additional clusters forced into the model. Although the largest number of high-utilization patients (top 20%) was in the multiple chronic condition cluster (1110 out of 4728), the largest proportion of high-utilization patients was in the renal disease cluster (67%).CONCLUSIONSRisk stratification enhanced with disease clustering organizes a primary care population into groups of similarly complex patients so that care coordination efforts can be focused and value of care can be maximized.

While much literature describes programmatic success of clinical service-learning opportunities, this initiative integrates student learning across a comprehensive discipline set (Dental Medicine, Graduate Studies, Health Administration, Medicine, Nursing, Occupational Therapy, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy, and Physician Assistant), providing preventive health education and role modeling to low-income elementary-school children. Junior Doctors of Health© (JDOH), a health education curriculum taught by Medical University of South Carolina students, addresses childhood obesity and encourages child interest in health professional (HP) and biomedical science (BS) careers. Of the 78 surveyed HP/BS students, over 80% agreed JDOH was worthwhile for their professional development, increased their appreciation and ability as an interprofessional team member, improved their understanding and interest in underserved communities, and provided them with valuable childhood-obesity prevention information. With the increased need for childhood-obesity prevention and team building among students of various health and science professions, recommendations are offered to others interested in creating or collaborating to build similar service-learning initiatives.

Institutions are increasingly considering interprofessional education (IPE) as a means to improve health care and reduce medical errors in the United States. Effective implementation of IPE within health professions education requires a strategic institutional approach to ensure longevity and sustainability. In 2007, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) established Creating Collaborative Care (C3), an IPE initiative that takes a multifaceted approach to weaving interprofessional collaborative experiences throughout MUSC's culture to prepare students to participate in interprofessional, collaborative health care and research settings. In this article, the authors describe C3's guiding conceptual foundation and student learning goals. They present its implementation framework to illustrate how C3 is embedded within the institutional culture. It is housed in the provost's office, and an overarching implementation committee functions as a central coordinating group. Faculty members develop and implement C3 activities across professions by contributing to four collaborating domains—curricular, extracurricular, faculty development, and health care simulation—each of which captures an IPE component. The authors provide examples of IPE activities developed by each domain to illustrate the breadth of IPE at MUSC. The authors believe that MUSC's efforts, including the conceptual foundation and implementation framework, can be generalized to other institutions intent on developing IPE within their organizational cultures.

The interpretation of the evidence linking exposure to secondhand smoke with lung cancer is constrained by the imprecision of risk estimates. The objective of the study was to obtain precise and valid estimates of the risk of lung cancer in never smokers following exposure to secondhand smoke, including adjustment for potential confounders and exposure misclassification. Pooled analysis of data from 2 previously reported large case-control studies was used. Subjects included 1263 never smoking lung cancer patients and 2740 population and hospital controls recruited during 1985-1994 from 5 metropolitan areas in the United States, 11 areas in Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. Odds ratios (ORs) of lung cancer were calculated for ever exposure and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke from spouse, workplace and social sources. The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.01-1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.99-1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.03-1.57). Similar results were obtained for exposure from social settings and for exposure from combined sources. A dose-response relationship was present with increasing duration of exposure to secondhand smoke for all 3 sources, with an OR of 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.79) for the long-term exposure from all sources. There was no evidence of confounding by employment in high-risk occupations, education or low vegetable intake. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of misclassification (both positive and negative) indicated that the observed risks are likely to underestimate the true risk. Clear dose-response relationships consistent with a causal association were observed between exposure to secondhand smoke from spousal, workplace and social sources and the development of lung cancer among never smokers.

BACKGROUND:Blacks are less likely than whites to develop bladder carcinoma. However, once they are diagnosed, black patients experience poorer survival. The authors investigated which factors were related to survival differences in black patients and white patients with bladder carcinoma stratified by extent of disease.METHODS:A population-based cohort of black patients with bladder carcinoma and a random sample of frequency-matched white patients with bladder carcinoma, stratified by age and gender, were identified through cancer registry systems in Atlanta, New Orleans, and San Francisco/Oakland. Patients had no previous cancer history and were ages 20-79 years at the time they were diagnosed with bladder carcinoma in 1985-1987. Medical records were reviewed at initial diagnosis, and 77% of patients were interviewed. Tumor grade, T classification, and other variables, including age, socioeconomic position, symptom duration, smoking history, and comorbidities, were recorded. Survival of black patients and white patients by extent of disease was modeled using Cox regression analysis.RESULTS:A greater proportion of black patients had histologic types of tumors that were associated with poorer survival. Among those with pure urothelial carcinoma, black patients had greater extent of disease at the time of diagnosis. Within specific extent-of-disease categories, there was some evidence of poorer survival for black patients with T2 tumors and strong evidence of poorer survival among those with T3 tumors compared with white patients. Black patients with muscle-invasive carcinoma who died within 6 months of diagnosis tended to present with life-threatening symptoms. Black patients and white patients did not differ with respect to diagnostic tests performed or therapy given.CONCLUSIONS:Black patients with bladder carcinoma had poorer survival due to greater extent of disease at diagnosis and a higher proportion of more aggressive histologies compared with white patients. Within urothelial carcinomas, by extent of disease (clinical/pathologic stage) these black/white survival differences were limited to patients with muscle invasion (T2 and T3 tumors).

Objectives This population-based case-control study examined the relationship between occupation, living or working on a farm, pesticide exposure, and the risk of multiple myeloma. Methods The study included 573 persons newly diagnosed with myeloma and 2131 controls. Information was obtained on sociodemographic factors, occupational history, and history of living and working on a farm. Occupational and industrial titles were coded by standardized classification systems. A job-exposure matrix was developed for occupational pesticide exposure. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression. Results Farmers and farm workers had odds ratios of 1.9 (95% CI 0.8-4.6) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.8-2.3), respectively. An odds ratio of 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.7) was observed for sheep farm residents or workers, whereas no increased risks were found for cattle, beef, pig, or chicken farm residents or workers. A modestly increased risk was observed for pesticides (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8). Significantly increased risks were found for pharmacists, dieticians and therapists (OR 6.1, 95% CI 1.7-22.5), service occupations (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.02-1.7), roofers (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.1-9.8), precision printing occupations (OR 10.1, 95% CI 1.03-99.8), heating equipment operators (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.4-15.8), and hand molders and casters (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-8.4). Conclusions A modest increased risk of multiple myeloma is suggested for occupational pesticide exposure. The increased risk for sheep farm residents or workers indicates that certain animal viruses may be involved in myeloma risk.

Prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men worldwide and the most common cancer in men in the United States, with reported incidence rates for U.S. blacks being the highest in the world. The etiology of prostate cancer and an explanation for the racial disparity in incidence in the United States remain elusive. Epidemiologic studies suggest that selenium, an essential trace element, may protect against the disease. To further explore this hypothesis, we measured serum selenium in 212 cases and 233 controls participating in a multicenter, population-based case-control study that included comparable numbers of U.S. black and white men aged 40-79 years. Serum selenium was inversely associated with risk of prostate cancer (comparing highest to lowest quartiles, OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.39-1.28; p for trend = 0.11), with similar patterns seen in both blacks and whites. Cubic regression spline analysis of continuous serum selenium indicated a reduced risk of prostate cancer above concentrations of 0.135 microg/ml (median among controls) compared to a reference value set at the median of the lowest selenium quartile. Because both the selenoenzyme GPX and vitamin E can function as antioxidants, we also explored their joint effect. Consistent with other studies, the inverse association with selenium was strongest among men with low serum alpha-tocopherol concentrations. In conclusion, our results suggest a moderately reduced risk of prostate cancer at higher serum selenium concentrations, a finding that can now be extended to include U.S. blacks. Since selenium exposure varies widely throughout the world, further research on optimal concentrations for cancer prevention is justified.

Background. For several decades, the incidence of pancreatic cancer has been 50% to 90% higher among blacks than among whites in the United States. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors that may contribute to this racial disparity.Methods. We conducted a population-based case-control study of pancreatic cancer diagnosed in Atlanta (GA), Detroit (MI), and 10 New Jersey counties from August 1986 through April 1989. In-person interviews were exclusively with subjects (526 cases and 2153 population controls), rather than with next of kin.Results. The determinants of the higher incidence of pancreatic cancer among blacks than among whites differed by sex. Among men, established risk factors (ie, cigarette smoking, long-term diabetes mellitus, family history of pancreatic cancer) account for 46% of the disease in blacks and 37% in whites, potentially explaining all but 6% of the excess risk among blacks. Among women, however, other factors appear to contribute to the racial disparity, notably moderate/heavy alcohol consumption (>7 drinks per week) and elevated body mass index (above the first quartile). When these less accepted risk factors were combined with the established risk factors, 88% of the disease in black women and 47% in white women were explained, potentially accounting for all of the excess risk among blacks in our female study population.Conclusions. Among men, the established risk factors (mainly cigarette smoking and diabetes mellitus) explain almost the entire black/white disparity in incidence. Among women, however, other factors appear to contribute to the racial disparity, notably moderate/heavy alcohol consumption and elevated body mass index. In the absence of these factors, pan. creatic cancer incidence rates among blacks probably would not exceed those among whites of either sex.

Epidemiologic studies investigating the relation between individual carotenoids and risk of prostate cancer have produced inconsistent results. To further explore these associations and to search for reasons prostate cancer incidence is over 50% higher in US Blacks than Whites, the authors analyzed the serum levels of individual carotenoids in 209 cases and 228 controls in a US multicenter, population-based case-control study (1986-1989) that included comparable numbers of Black men and White men aged 40-79 years. Lycopene was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk (comparing highest with lowest quartiles, odds ratio (OR) = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36, 1.15; test for trend, p = 0.09), particularly for aggressive disease (comparing extreme quartiles, OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.94; test for trend, p = 0.04). Other carotenoids were positively associated with risk. For all carotenoids, patterns were similar for Blacks and Whites. However, in both the controls and the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, serum lycopene concentrations were significantly lower in Blacks than in Whites, raising the possibility that differences in lycopene exposure may contribute to the racial disparity in incidence. In conclusion, the results, though not statistically significant, suggest that serum lycopene is inversely related to prostate cancer risk in US Blacks and Whites.