Search

Objective: To create a data-driven definition of post-COVID conditions (PCC) by directly measure changes in symptomatology before and after a first COVID episode., Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study using Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) dataset from the United States of persons of any age April 2020-September 2021. For each person with COVID (ICD-10-CM U07.1 "COVID-19" or positive test result), we selected up to 3 comparators. The final COVID symptom score was computed as the sum of new diagnoses weighted by each diagnosis' ratio of incidence in COVID group relative to comparator group. For the subset of COVID cases diagnosed in September 2021, we compared the incidence of PCC using our data-driven definition with ICD-10-CM code U09.9 "Post-COVID Conditions", first available in the US October 2021., Results: The final cohort contained 588,611 people with COVID, with mean age of 48 years and 38% male. Our definition identified 20% of persons developed PCC in follow-up. PCC incidence increased with age: (7.8% of persons aged 0-17, 17.3% aged 18-64, and 33.3% aged 65+) and did not change over time (20.0% among persons diagnosed with COVID in 2020 versus 20.3% in 2021). For cases diagnosed in September 2021, our definition identified 19.0% with PCC in follow-up as compared to 2.9% with U09.9 code in follow-up., Conclusion: Symptom and U09.9 code-based definitions alone captured different populations. Maximal capture may consider a combined approach, particularly before the availability and routine utilization of specific ICD-10 codes and with the lack consensus-based definitions on the syndrome., Competing Interests: Dr Andersen, Mr Khan, Dr Park, Dr Wiemken, Dr Emir, Ms Malhotra, and Dr McGrath are employees of Pfizer Inc and may hold stock or stock options. Dr Alhanai and Dr Ghassemi are co-founders of Ghamut Corporation which has received consulting fees from Pfizer Inc. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, (Copyright: © 2024 Andersen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background & Aims: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are potential risk factors for severe pneumonia and other infections. Available data on the role of NAFLD/NASH in worsening outcomes for COVID-19 are controversial and might be confounded by comorbidities., Methods: We used the PINC AI™ Healthcare Data Special Release (PHD-SR) to identify patients with COVID-19 (ICD-10) at approximately 900 hospitals in the United States. We performed exact matching (age, gender, and ethnicity) for patients with or without NAFLD/NASH, adjusting for demographics (admission type, region) and comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes) through inverse probability of treatment weighting and then analysed hospitalisation-related outcomes., Results: Among 513 623 patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), we identified 14 667 with NAFLD/NASH who could be matched to 14 667 controls. Mean age was 57.6 (±14.9) years, 50.8% were females and 43.7% were non-Hispanic whites. After matching, baseline characteristics (e.g., age, ethnicity, and gender) and comorbidities (e.g., hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) were well balanced (standard difference (SD) <.10), except for cirrhosis and malignancies. Patients with COVID-19 and NAFLD/NASH had higher FIB-4 scores, a significantly longer hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care LOS than controls (9.4 vs. 8.3 days, and 10.4 vs. 9.3, respectively), even after adjusting for cirrhosis and malignancies. Patients with COVID-19 and NAFLD/NASH also had significantly higher risk of needing invasive mandatory ventilation (IMV) (odds ratio 1.0727; 95% CI 1.0095-1.1400). Other outcomes were similar in both groups., Conclusions: In this large real-world cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in the United States, NAFLD/NASH were obesity-independent risk factors for complicated disease courses., (© 2023 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Post-COVID conditions encompass a range of long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The potential clinical and economic burden in the United States is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare use, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients at high risk of severe COVID-19., Methods: Eligible adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, had ≥ 1 condition placing them at risk of severe COVID-19, and were enrolled in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics ® Data Mart Database for ≥ 12 months before and ≥ 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, resource use, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified by age and COVID-19 severity., Results: The cohort included 19,558 patients (aged 18-64 y, n = 9381; aged ≥ 65 y, n = 10,177). Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had increased percentages of blood disorders (16.3%), nervous system disorders (11.1%), and mental and behavioral disorders (7.7%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Overall, there were substantial increases in inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, along with a 23.0% increase in medical costs. Changes were greatest among older patients and those admitted to the intensive care unit for acute COVID-19 but were also observed in younger patients and those who did not require COVID-19 hospitalization., Conclusions: There is a significant clinical and economic burden of post-COVID conditions among US individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To create case definitions for confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 vaccination status and three separate definitions of high risk of severe COVID-19, as well as to assess whether the implementation of these definitions in a cohort reflected the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 epidemiology in England., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Electronic healthcare records from primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) linked to secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) data covering 24% of the population in England., Participants: 2 271 072 persons aged 1 year and older diagnosed with COVID-19 in CPRD Aurum between 1 August 2020 and 31 January 2022., Main Outcome Measures: Age, sex and regional distribution of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to diagnosis were assessed separately for the cohorts of cases identified in primary care and those hospitalised for COVID-19 (primary diagnosis code of ICD-10 U07.1 'COVID-19'). Smoking status, body mass index and Charlson Comorbidity Index were compared for the two cohorts, as well as for three separate definitions of high risk of severe disease used in the UK (National Health Service Highest Risk, PANORAMIC trial eligibility, UK Health Security Agency Clinical Risk prioritisation for vaccination)., Results: Compared with national estimates, CPRD case estimates under-represented older adults in both the primary care (age 65-84: 6% in CPRD vs 9% nationally) and hospitalised (31% vs 40%) cohorts, and over-represented people living in regions with the highest median wealth areas of England (20% primary care and 20% hospital admitted cases in South East vs 15% nationally). The majority of non-hospitalised cases and all hospitalised cases had not completed primary series vaccination. In primary care, persons meeting high-risk definitions were older, more often smokers, overweight or obese, and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score., Conclusions: CPRD primary care data are a robust real-world data source and can be used for some COVID-19 research questions, however, limitations of the data availability should be carefully considered. Included in this publication are supplemental files for a total of over 28 000 codes to define each of three definitions of high risk of severe disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KMA, LJM, MR, DM, JLN, CT, DM and JY are employees of Pfizer or Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stock or stock options. KKR and TT are employees of Adelphi Real World which has received consulting fees from Pfizer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Describe the economic burden of COVID-19 on employers and employees in the United States (US)., Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on US-based employers and employees in terms of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), medical costs, and costs associated with work-loss. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit using a combination of disease terms, populations, and outcomes to identify articles published from January 2021 to November 4, 2022. As data from the employer perspective were lacking, additional literature related to influenza were included to contextualize the impact of COVID-19, as it shifts into an endemic state, within the existing respiratory illness landscape., Results: A total of 41 articles were included in the literature review. Employer and employee perspectives were not well represented in the literature, and very few articles overlapped on any given outcome. HCRU, costs, and work impairment vary by community transmission levels, industry type, population demographics, telework ability, mitigation implementation measures, and company policies. Work-loss among COVID-19 cases were higher among the unvaccinated and in the week following diagnosis and for some, these continued for 6 months. HCRU is increased in those with COVID-19 and COVID-19-related HCRU can also continue for 6 months., Conclusions: COVID-19 continues to be a considerable burden to employers. The majority of COVID-19 cases impact working age adults. HCRU is mainly driven by outpatient visits, while direct costs are driven by hospitalization. Productivity loss is higher for unvaccinated individuals. An increased focus to support mitigation measures may minimize hospitalizations and work-loss. A data-driven approach to implementation of workplace policies, targeted communications, and access to timely and appropriate therapies for prevention and treatment may reduce health-related work-loss and associated cost burden.

Importance: No data comparing the estimated effectiveness of coadministering COVID-19 vaccines with seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) in the community setting exist., Objective: To examine the comparative effectiveness associated with coadministering the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2-biv [Pfizer BioNTech]) and SIV vs giving each vaccine alone., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective comparative effectiveness study evaluated US adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in commercial health insurance or Medicare Advantage plans and vaccinated with BNT162b2-biv only, SIV only, or both on the same day between August 31, 2022, and January 30, 2023. Individuals with monovalent or another brand of mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine were excluded., Exposure: Same-day coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV; receipt of BNT162b2-biv only (for COVID-19-related outcomes) or SIV only (for influenza-related outcomes) were the comparator groups. For adults aged 65 years or older, only enhanced SIVs were included., Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related and influenza-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters, and outpatient visits., Results: Overall, 3 442 996 individuals (57.0% female; mean [SD] age, 65 [16.7] years) were included. A total of 627 735 individuals had BNT162b2-biv and SIV vaccine coadministered, 369 423 had BNT162b2-biv alone, and 2 445 838 had SIV alone. Among those aged 65 years or older (n = 2 210 493; mean [SD] age, 75 [6.7] years; 57.9% female), the coadministration group had a similar incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24) and slightly higher incidence of emergency department or urgent care encounters (AHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and outpatient visits (AHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) compared with the BNT162b2-biv-only group. Among individuals aged 18 to 64 years (n = 1 232 503; mean [SD] age, 47 [13.1] years; 55.4% female), the incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes was slightly higher among those who received both vaccines vs BNT162b2-biv alone (AHR point estimate range, 1.14-1.57); however, fewer events overall in this age group resulted in wider CIs. Overall, compared with those who received SIV alone, the coadministration group had a slightly lower incidence of most influenza-related end points (AHR point estimates 0.83-0.93 for those aged ≥65 years vs 0.76-1.08 for those aged 18-64 years). Negative control outcomes suggested residual bias and calibration of COVID-19-related and influenza-related outcomes with negative controls moved all estimates closer to the null, with most CIs crossing 1.00., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV was associated with generally similar effectiveness in the community setting against COVID-19-related and SIV-related outcomes compared with giving each vaccine alone and may help improve uptake of both vaccines.

Background: To minimise infection during COVID-19, the clozapine haematological monitoring interval was extended from 4-weekly to 12-weekly intervals in South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust., Aims: To investigate the impact of this temporary policy change on clinical and safety outcomes., Method: All patients who received clozapine treatment with extended (12-weekly) monitoring in a large London National Health Service trust were included in a 1-year mirror-image study. A comparison group was selected with standard monitoring. The proportion of participants with mild to severe neutropenia and the proportion of participants attending the emergency department for clozapine-induced severe neutropenia treatment during the follow-up period were compared. Psychiatric hospital admission rates, clozapine dose and concomitant psychotropic medication in the 1 year before and the 1 year after extended monitoring were compared. All-cause clozapine discontinuation at 1-year follow-up was examined., Results: Of 569 participants, 459 received clozapine with extended monitoring and 110 controls continued as normal. The total person-years were 458 in the intervention group and 109 in the control group, with a median follow-up time of 1 year in both groups. During follow-up, two participants (0.4%) recorded mild to moderate neutropenia in the intervention group and one (0.9%) in the control group. There was no difference in the incidence of haematological events between the two groups (IRR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.02-28.15, P = 0.29). All neutropenia cases in the intervention group were mild, co-occurring during COVID-19 infection. The median number of admissions per patient during the pre-mirror period remained unchanged (0, IQR = 0) during the post-mirror period. There was one death in the control group, secondary to COVID-19 infection., Conclusions: There was no evidence that the incidence of severe neutropenia was increased in those receiving extended monitoring.

Rationale and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the virtualization of historically in-person radiology rotations for medical students. As students return to in-person clinical education, there is an opportunity to reevaluate teaching strategies and incorporate best practices from the pandemic. We describe our experience with the conversion of a four-week radiology clerkship from an in-person (IP) to remote learning (RL) to hybrid model (HM) and its impact on student performance and satisfaction., Materials and Methods: Stratified by curriculum (Group 1 IP, Group 2 RL, Group 3 HM), student standardized final examination scores, final grades, lecture evaluation scores, and satisfaction scores were compared. Additional analysis was performed for Group 3 clinical divisions in which IP or RL models predominated., Results: A significant decrease in mean final exam score was noted in Group 2 (p < 0.0001). Average lecture rating decreased in Group 3 compared to Group 1 (p < 0.001). Group 3 students reported improved faculty (Group 1: 59, Group 2: 61, Group 3: 82; p < 0.001) and resident (Group 1: 76.5, Group 2: 68, Group 3: 90; p < 0.001) teaching effectiveness. Student-reported quantity and quality of formative feedback were also highest for Group 3 (Quantity; Group 1: 60.6, Group 2: 74, Group 3: 93; p < 0.001) (Quality; Group 1: 59.1, Group 2: 77, Group 3: 97; p < 0.001). Group 3 subanalysis demonstrated increased student-perceived usefulness of activities within IP divisions (p < 0.01) and a decrease for RL divisions (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: A hybrid curriculum resulted in improved student satisfaction and preserved student performance after an emergent conversion to remote learning., (Copyright © 2022 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a social crisis that will have long-term health consequences for much of the global population, especially for adolescents. Adolescents are triply affected as they: 1) are experiencing its immediate, direct effects, 2) will carry forward health habits they develop now into adulthood, and 3) as future parents, will shape the early life health of the next generation. It is therefore imperative to assess how the pandemic is influencing adolescent wellbeing, identify sources of resilience, and outline strategies for attenuating its negative impacts., Methods: We report the results of longitudinal analyses of qualitative data from 28 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 39 Canadian adolescents and of cross-sectional analyses of survey data from 482 Canadian adolescents gathered between September 2020 and August 2021. FGD participants and survey respondents reported on their: socio-demographic characteristics; mental health and wellbeing before and during the pandemic; pre- and during-pandemic health behaviours; experiences living through a crisis; current perceptions of their school, work, social, media, and governmental environments; and ideas about pandemic coping and mutual aid. We plotted themes emerging from FGDs along a pandemic timeline, noting socio-demographic variations. Following assessment for internal reliability and dimension reduction, quantitative health/wellbeing indicators were analyzed as functions of composite socio-demographic, health-behavioural, and health-environmental indicators., Results: Our mixed methods analyses indicate that adolescents faced considerable mental and physical health challenges due to the pandemic, and were generally in poorer health than expected in non-crisis times. Nevertheless, some participants showed significantly better outcomes than others, specifically those who: got more exercise; slept better; were food secure; had clearer routines; spent more time in nature, deep in-person social relationships, and leisure; and spent less time on social media., Conclusions: Support for youth during times of crisis is essential to future population health because adolescence is a period in the life course which shapes the health behaviours, socio-economic capacities, and neurophysiology of these future parents/carers and leaders. Efforts to promote resilience in adolescents should leverage the factors identified above: helping them find structure and senses of purpose through strong social connections, well-supported work and leisure environments, and opportunities to engage with nature., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Little is known about the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and subsequent risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event (CVE) after COVID-19 recovery. We evaluated this relationship in a large cohort of United States adults., Methods: Using a claims database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. We evaluated the association between COVID-19 severity and risk of CVE >30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis using inverse probability of treatment-weighted competing risks regression. Severity was based on level of care required for COVID-19 treatment: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-ICU hospitalization, or outpatient care only., Results: A total of 1 357 518 COVID-19 patients were included (2% ICU, 3% non-ICU hospitalization, and 95% outpatient only). Compared to outpatients, there was an increased risk of any CVE for patients requiring ICU admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.80 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.71-1.89]) or non-ICU hospitalization (aHR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.24-1.33]). Risk of subsequent hospitalization for CVE was even higher (aHRs, 3.47 [95% CI, 3.20-3.76] for ICU and 1.96 [95% CI, 1.85-2.09] for non-ICU hospitalized vs outpatient only)., Conclusions: COVID-19 patients hospitalized or requiring critical care had a significantly higher risk of experiencing and being hospitalized for post-COVID-19 CVE than patients with milder COVID-19 who were managed solely in the outpatient setting, even after adjusting for differences between these groups. These findings underscore the continued importance of preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from progressing to severe illness to reduce potential long-term cardiovascular complications., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors are employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: A new International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis code (U09.9 Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified) was introduced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on October 1, 2021., Objective: To examine the use of the U09.9 code and describe concurrently diagnosed conditions to understand physician use of this code in clinical practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US patients with an ICD-10-CM code for post-COVID-19 condition used deidentified patient-level claims data aggregated by HealthVerity. Children and adolescents (aged 0-17 years) and adults (aged 18-64 and ≥65 years) with a post-COVID-19 condition code were identified between October 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022. To identify a prior COVID-19 diagnosis, 3 months of continuous enrollment (CE) before the post-COVID-19 diagnosis date was required., Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of the ICD-10-CM U09.9 code., Results: There were 56 143 patients (7723 female patients [61.2%]; mean [SD] age, 47.6 [19.2] years) with a post-COVID-19 diagnosis code, with cases increasing in mid-December 2021 following the trajectory of the Omicron case wave by 3 to 4 weeks. The analysis cohort included 12 622 patients after the 3-month preindex CE criteria was applied. Among this cohort, the median (IQR) age was 49 (35-61) years; however, 1080 (8.6%) were pediatric patients. The U09.9 code was used most often in the outpatient setting, although 305 older adults (14.0%) were inpatients. Only 698 patients (5.5%) had at least 1 of the 5 codes listed as possible concurrent conditions in the coding guidance. Only 8879 patients (70.4%) had a documented acute COVID-19 diagnosis code (569 [52.7%] among children), and the median (IQR) time between acute COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 diagnosis codes was 56 (21-200) days. The most common concurrently coded conditions varied by age; children experienced COVID-19-like symptoms (eg, 207 [19.2%] had cough and 115 [10.6%] had breathing abnormalities), while 459 older adults aged 65 years or older (21.1%) experienced respiratory failure and 189 (8.7%) experienced viral pneumonia., Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found patients with a post-COVID-19 ICD-10-CM diagnosis code following the acute phase of COVID-19 disease among patients of all ages in clinical practice in the US. The use of the U09.9 code encompassed a wide range of conditions. It will be important to monitor how the use of this code changes as the pandemic continues to evolve.

The outcomes of vaccination against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in organ transplant recipients are unclear. Recent studies have investigated outcomes for patients who are several years post transplant. There has not been much data in peri-transplant patients. This is important because patients are highly immunosuppressed during this period owing to induction immunosuppression and are thus susceptible to infection. We looked at 6 patients who were transplanted at our center after receiving their first dose of mRNA vaccines. We assessed their antibody response after 1, 2, and in two patients, 3 doses of the vaccine. Out of the two patients who received their third booster dose, one had a detectable antibody level after the third dose. We report that the overall antibody response to vaccination was weaker in transplant patients compared with the general population, with a rapid attrition of antibody response over time. There is a need for more studies that follow-up antibody levels in transplant patients over time, especially those in the peri-transplant period to help guide the vaccination plan for immunosuppressed transplant patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study describes demographics, thrombotic and bleeding events, mortality, and anticoagulant use among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States. Premier Healthcare Database data were analyzed to identify inpatients with a discharge diagnosis for COVID-19 (ICD-10-CM code: U07.1) from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021, and matched historical controls without COVID-19 (inpatients discharged between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019). Thrombotic [including venous thromboembolism (VTE)] and bleeding events were based on ICD-10-CM discharge diagnosis codes. Of the 546,656 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20.1% were admitted to the ICU, 62.8% were aged ≥ 60 years, 51.5% were male, and 31.0% were non-white. Any thrombotic event was diagnosed in 10.0% of hospitalized and 20.8% of ICU patients with COVID-19 versus (vs) 11.5% and 24.4% for historical controls, respectively. More VTE events were observed in hospitalized and ICU patients with COVID-19 than historical controls (hospitalized: 4.4% vs 2.7%, respectively; ICU: 8.3% vs 5.2%, respectively; both P < 0.0001). Bleeding events were diagnosed in 10.2% of hospitalized and 21.8% of ICU patients with COVID-19 vs 16.0% and 33.2% for historical controls, respectively. Mortality among hospitalized (12.4%) and ICU (38.5%) patients with COVID-19 was higher vs historical controls (2.4%, P < 0.0001 and 9.4%, P < 0.0001, respectively) and higher in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had thrombotic events (29.4%) vs those without thrombotic events (10.8%, P < 0.0001). VTE and mortality were higher in hospitalized and ICU patients with COVID-19 vs historical controls. The presence of thrombotic events was associated with worse outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: To describe the characteristics, healthcare resource use and costs associated with initial hospitalization and readmissions among pediatric patients with COVID-19 in the US., Methods: Hospitalized pediatric patients, 0-11 years of age, with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis code for COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) were selected from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2021 in the US Premier Healthcare Database Special Release (PHD SR). Patient characteristics, hospital length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, hospital costs, hospital charges, and COVID-19-associated readmission outcomes were evaluated and stratified by age groups (0-4, 5-11), four COVID-19 disease progression states based on intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) usage, and three sequential calendar periods. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the US HealthVerity claims database and restricting the analyses to the primary discharge code., Results: Among 4,573 hospitalized pediatric patients aged 0-11 years, 68.0% were 0-4 years and 32.0% were 5-11 years, with a mean (median) age of 3.2 (1) years; 56.0% were male, and 67.2% were covered by Medicaid. Among the overall study population, 25.7% had immunocompromised condition(s), 23.1% were admitted to the ICU and 7.3% received IMV. The mean (median) hospital LOS was 4.3 (2) days, hospital costs and charges were $14,760 ($6,164) and $58,418 ($21,622), respectively; in-hospital mortality was 0.5%. LOS, costs, charges, and in-hospital mortality increased with ICU admission and/or IMV usage. In total, 2.1% had a COVID-19-associated readmission. Study outcomes appeared relatively more frequent and/or higher among those 5-11 than those 0-4. Results using the HealthVerity data source were generally consistent with main analyses., Limitations: This retrospective administrative database analysis relied on coding accuracy and inpatient admissions with validated hospital costs., Conclusions: These findings underscore that children aged 0-11 years can experience severe COVID-19 illness requiring hospitalization and substantial hospital resource use, further supporting recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can infect any human host, but kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are considered more susceptible on the basis of previous experience with other viral infections. We evaluated rates of hospital complications between SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR and comparator groups., Methods: We extracted data from the electronic health record on patients who were hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2, testing at six hospitals from March 4 through September 9, 2020. We compared outcomes between SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR and controls: SARS-CoV-2-positive non-KTR, SARS-CoV-2-negative KTR, and SARS-CoV-2-negative non-KTR., Results: Of 31,540 inpatients, 3213 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. There were 32 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 224 SARS-CoV-2-negative KTR. SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR had higher ferritin levels (1412; interquartile range, 748-1749 versus 553; interquartile range, 256-1035; P <0.01) compared with SARS-CoV-2-positive non-KTR. SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR had higher rates of ventilation (34% versus 14%, P <0.01; versus 9%, P <0.01; versus 5%, P <0.01), vasopressor use (41% versus 16%, P <0.01; versus 17%, P <0.01; versus 12%, P <0.01), and AKI (47% versus 15%, P <0.01; versus 23%, P <0.01; versus 10%, P <0.01) compared with SARS-CoV-2-positive non-KTR, SARS-CoV-2-negative KTR, and SARS-CoV-2-negative non-KTR, respectively. SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR continued to have increased odds of ventilation, vasopressor use, and AKI compared with SARS-CoV-2-positive non-KTR independent of Elixhauser score, Black race, and baseline eGFR. Mortality was not significantly different between SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR and non-KTR, but there was a notable trend toward higher mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR (25% versus 16%, P =0.15, respectively)., Conclusions: Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive KTR had a high rate of mortality and hospital complications, such as requiring ventilation, vasopressor use, and AKI. Additionally, they had higher odds of hospital complications compared with SARS-CoV-2-positive non-KTR after adjusting for Elixhauser score, Black race, and baseline eGFR. Future studies with larger sample size of KTR are needed to validate our findings., Podcast: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/K360/2021&#95;03&#95;25&#95;KID0005652020.mp3., Competing Interests: E. Marin reports having consultancy agreements with Natera and Veloxis; reports being a scientific advisor or member of the Kidney360 Review Board; and reports having other interests/relationships as a member of the American Society of Nephrology and American Society of Transplantation. D. Moledina reports a patent to Systems and Methods to Diagnose Acute Interstitial Nephritis pending. F. Wilson reports having consultancy agreements with Translational Catalyst, LLC; reports having an ownership interest in Efference, LLC; reports being a scientific advisor or member of the Editorial Board of the American Journal of Kidney Disease and the Editorial Board of CJASN; and reports other interests/relationships as Board of Directors of Gaylord Health Care and Medical Commentator of Medscape. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objective: To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections among immunocompromised (IC) individuals., Methods: Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 were selected from the US HealthVerity database (10 December 2020  to  8   July 2021). COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections were examined in fully vaccinated (≥14 days after 2nd dose) IC individuals (IC cohort), 12 mutually exclusive IC condition groups, and a non-IC cohort. IC conditions were identified using an algorithm based on diagnosis codes and immunosuppressive (IS) medication usage., Results: Of 1,277,747 individuals ≥16 years of age who received 2 BNT162b2 doses, 225,796 (17.7%) were identified as IC (median age: 58 years; 56.3% female). The most prevalent IC conditions were solid malignancy (32.0%), kidney disease (19.5%), and rheumatologic/inflammatory conditions (16.7%). Among the fully vaccinated IC and non-IC cohorts, a total of 978 breakthrough infections were observed during the study period; 124 (12.7%) resulted in hospitalization and 2 (0.2%) were inpatient deaths. IC individuals accounted for 38.2% ( N  = 374) of all breakthrough infections, 59.7% ( N  = 74) of all hospitalizations, and 100% ( N  = 2) of inpatient deaths. The proportion with breakthrough infections was 3 times higher in the IC cohort compared to the non-IC cohort ( N  = 374 [0.18%] vs. N  = 604 [0.06%]; unadjusted incidence rates were 0.89 and 0.34 per 100 person-years, respectively. Organ transplant recipients had the highest incidence rate; those with >1 IC condition, antimetabolite usage, primary immunodeficiencies, and hematologic malignancies also had higher incidence rates compared to the overall IC cohort. Incidence rates in older (≥65 years old) IC individuals were generally higher versus younger IC individuals (<65)., Limitations: This retrospective analysis relied on coding accuracy and had limited capture of COVID-19 vaccine receipt., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections are rare but are more common and severe in IC individuals. The findings from this large study support the FDA authorization and CDC recommendations to offer a 3rd vaccine dose to increase protection among IC individuals.

Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate health outcomes and the economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States., Methods: Hospitalized patients with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis code for COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) from 1 April to 31 October 2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare COVID-19 Database. Patient demographics, hospitalization characteristics, and concomitant medical conditions were assessed. Hospital length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, hospital charges, and hospital costs were evaluated overall and stratified by age groups, insurance types, and 4 COVID-19 disease progression states based on intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) usage., Results: Of the 173,942 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the median age was 63 years, 51.0% were male, and 48.5% were covered by Medicare. The most prevalent concomitant medical conditions were cardiovascular disease (73.5%), hypertension (64.8%), diabetes (40.7%), obesity (27.0%), and chronic kidney disease (24.2%). Approximately one-fifth (21.9%) of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU and 16.9% received IMV; most patients (73.6%) did not require ICU admission or IMV, and 12.4% required both. The median hospital LOS was 5 days, in-hospital mortality was 13.6%, median hospital charges were $43,986, and median hospital costs were $12,046. Hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality increased with ICU and/or IMV usage and age; hospital charges and costs increased with ICU and/or IMV usage. Patients with both ICU and IMV usage had the longest median hospital LOS (15 days), highest in-hospital mortality (53.8%), and highest hospital charges ($198,394) and hospital costs ($54,402)., Limitations: This retrospective administrative database analysis relied on coding accuracy and a subset of admissions with validated/reconciled hospital costs., Conclusions: This study summarizes the severe health outcomes and substantial hospital costs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. The findings support the urgent need for rapid implementation of effective interventions, including safe and efficacious vaccines.

This article examines the performance of real estate investment trusts (REITs) vis-à-vis various benchmark indexes spanning from January 2010 to August 2022. It reveals that the monthly returns of REITs are explicable through systematic factor exposures, primarily linked to equity markets. This indicates a potential limitation in the diversification benefits typically sought by equity investors within the real estate market. Additionally, the article highlights the influence of changes in the slope of yield curve on REIT performance. During periods of COVID-19 induced lockdown and before the start of vaccinations, REITs exhibited a pronounced correlation with benchmarks, posing challenges to diversification strategies. Notably, diversified and industrial REITs displayed positive alphas, albeit not statistically significant, reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, healthcare REITs demonstrated a negative alpha during this period. Subsequent to the vaccination phase, most REIT categories demonstrated positive alphas, except healthcare and office REITs, according to the six-factor model. This transition signifies nuanced shifts in the performance dynamics of REITs in response to evolving market conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has become an undeniable reality and has forced the world to seek out a "new normal" as we move forward into a post-pandemic era. In the face of this crisis, businesses are now confronted with the difficult task of adapting their business models to fit this new reality, which has been directly influenced by the pandemic. These challenges are the direct result of the pandemic, and this research aims to explore the key obstacles that businesses must overcome as they navigate the post-COVID- 9 environment. Additionally, we will discuss several fundamental transformative methods that firms can adopt to not only survive, but thrive in this "new normal" and beyond. We will also examine the importance of technology and the digital transformation that companies must undergo in order to remain competitive in today's technology-driven world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare specialty real estate investment trusts (REITs) enable an investor to focus on a certain industry's high total return, income, and diversity. COVID-19 has a number of distinct, and at times contradictory, implications for the healthcare business. Although extensive study has been done on the success of REITs and other specialty mutual funds, there has been less research on the relative performance of healthcare REITs and how COVID 19 influences their performance in contrast to past years. This research looks at the performance of healthcare REITs from 2016 through 2020. In addition, we evaluate a REIT's performance against those of its competitors, as well as its own previous performance. Based on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), return on investment, interest coverage ratio, cash flow per share, and efficiency in utilization of its capital, only three out of twelve healthcare REITs have consistently performed better relative to their peers throughout the sample period of 2016 to 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]