Search

BackgroundSince January 2020, COVID-19 has affected more than 100 million people in the U.S. Previous studies on racial and ethnic disparities related to characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients have been insightful. However, appropriate epidemiologic age-standardization of the disease burden and disparities for hospitalization data are lacking.ObjectiveTo identify and describe racial and ethnic disparities for primary COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. in 2020.MethodsIn this nationally representative observational study, we use the National Inpatient Sample to quantify racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 hospitalizations. Descriptive statistics for patient characteristics, common comorbidities, age-standardized hospitalization rates, inpatient complications, and mortality among COVID-19 hospitalizations were contrasted by race and ethnicity.ResultsThere were 1,058,815 primary COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020. Of those, 47.2% were female, with median age of 66 (IQR, 54, 77). Overall inpatient mortality rate was 11.1%. When compared to White patients, Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients had higher age-standardized hospitalization rate ratios of 2.42 (95% CI 2.40-2.43), 2.26 (2.25-2.28), and 2.51 (2.46-2.56), respectively. Non-White patients had increased age-adjusted rates for procedures and complications. Factors associated with inpatient mortality include age, male sex, Hispanic or Native American race or ethnicity, lower income, Medicaid, heart failure, arrhythmias, coagulopathy, and chronic liver disease.ConclusionsMarginalized populations in the U.S. had over twice the COVID-19 hospitalization rate relative to White patients. Age-adjusted mortality rates were highest for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients. Careful consideration for vulnerable populations is encouraged during highly communicable respiratory pandemics.

BackgroundAdmission eosinopenia (

BackgroundMany persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking.MethodsWe randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 μg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent).ResultsA total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV1 was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo.ConclusionsInhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Study objectivesSleep is an important dimension in the care of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its relevance to exacerbations is unclear. We wanted to assess whether sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is associated with an increased risk of COPD exacerbations and does this differ by socio-environmental exposures.MethodsWe included 1647 current and former smokers with spirometrically confirmed COPD from the SPIROMICS cohort. We assessed incidence rate ratios for exacerbation using zero-inflated negative binomial regression adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, and multiple metrics of disease severity, including respiratory medications, airflow obstruction, and symptom burden. Our final model adjusted for socio-environmental exposures using the Area Deprivation Index, a composite measure of contemporary neighborhood quality, and Adversity-Opportunity Index, a composite measure of individual-level historic and current socioeconomic indicators. We used a pre-determined threshold of 20% missingness to undertake multiple imputation by chained equations. As sensitivity analyses, we repeated models in those with complete data and after controlling for prior exacerbations. As an exploratory analysis, we considered an interaction between socio-environmental condition and sleep quality.ResultsAfter adjustment for all co-variates, increasing PSQI scores (range 0-21) were associated with a 5% increased risk for exacerbation per point (p = .001) in the imputed dataset. Sensitivity analyses using complete cases and after controlling for prior exacerbation history were similar. Exploratory analysis suggested less effect among those who lived in poor-quality neighborhoods (p-for-interaction = .035).ConclusionsPoor sleep quality may contribute to future exacerbations among patients with COPD. This represents one target for improving disease control.Clinical trial registrationSubpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier# NCT01969344. Registry URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/.

BackgroundForced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) is central to the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but is imprecise in classifying disease burden. We examined the potential of the maximal mid-expiratory flow rate (forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% [FEF25%-75%]) as an additional tool for characterizing pathophysiology in COPD.ObjectiveTo determine whether FEF25%-75% helps predict clinical and radiographic abnormalities in COPD.Study design and methodsThe SubPopulations and InteRediate Outcome Measures In COPD Study (SPIROMICS) enrolled a prospective cohort of 2978 nonsmokers and ever-smokers, with and without COPD, to identify phenotypes and intermediate markers of disease progression. We used baseline data from 2771 ever-smokers from the SPIROMICS cohort to identify associations between percent predicted FEF25%-75% (%predFEF25%-75%) and both clinical markers and computed tomography (CT) findings of smoking-related lung disease.ResultsLower %predFEF25-75% was associated with more severe disease, manifested radiographically by increased functional small airways disease, emphysema (most notably with homogeneous distribution), CT-measured residual volume, total lung capacity (TLC), and airway wall thickness, and clinically by increased symptoms, decreased 6-minute walk distance, and increased bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR). A lower %predFEF25-75% remained significantly associated with increased emphysema, functional small airways disease, TLC, and BDR after adjustment for FEV1 or forced vital capacity (FVC).InterpretationThe %predFEF25-75% provides additional information about disease manifestation beyond FEV1. These associations may reflect loss of elastic recoil and air trapping from emphysema and intrinsic small airways disease. Thus, %predFEF25-75% helps link the anatomic pathology and deranged physiology of COPD.

BackgroundSmall airways are known to be affected early in the course of COPD; however, traditional spirometric indices may not accurately identify small airways disease.Research questionCan forced expiratory volume in 3 s/forced expiratory volume in 6 s (FEV3/FEV6) identify early airflow abnormalities and predict future clinically important respiratory-related outcomes, including development of COPD?Study design and methodsThe study included 832 current and former smokers with post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≥ 0.7 from the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS) cohort. Participants were classified as having a reduced pre-bronchodilator FEV3/FEV6 based on lower limit of normal (LLN) values. Repeatability analysis was performed for FEV3 and FEV6. Regression modeling was used to evaluate the relationship between baseline FEV3/FEV6 and outcome measures, including functional small airways disease, on thoracic imaging and respiratory exacerbations. Interval-censored analysis was used to assess progression to COPD.ResultsFEV3/FEV6 less than the LLN at baseline, defined as reduced compared with FEV3/FEV6 at or above the LLN, was associated with lower FEV1, poorer health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score), more emphysema, and more functional small airways disease on quantitative imaging. FEV3 and FEV6 showed excellent agreement between repeat measurements. A reduced FEV3/FEV6 was associated with increased odds of a severe respiratory exacerbation within the first year of follow-up and decreased time to first exacerbation. A low FEV3/FEV6 was also associated with development of COPD according to spirometry results (post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.7) during study follow-up.InterpretationFEV3/FEV6 is a routinely available and repeatable spirometric index that can be useful in the evaluation of early airflow obstruction in current and former smokers without COPD. A reduced FEV3/FEV6 can identify those at risk for future development of COPD and respiratory exacerbations.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01969344; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov: ClinicalTrials.gov.

Rationale: Comorbidity is a significant driver of health status and healthcare utilization in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) portends poorer outcomes, whereas obesity is protective. Objectives: We describe the prevalence and influence of these comorbidities on COPD readmissions. Methods: We collated discharge records for COPD exacerbations spanning 2010-2016 from the Nationwide Readmissions Database using Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program criteria, with OSA-COPD overlap identified by concomitant diagnosis code for OSA. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to predict readmission odds. A cross-sectional mediation analysis was performed to evaluate the extent that OSA attenuated obesity's impact on readmission. Results: Of 1,662,983 qualifying COPD discharges, 19.1% carried a diagnosis of obesity and 12.9% had OSA, with both diagnoses present in 7.8%. In unadjusted analyses, obesity (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.05; P

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with worsened outcomes in COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). However, data remain fraught with heterogeneity and bias from comorbid conditions. Additionally, data on the impact of COPD-specific factors, such as pre-hospital medications and pulmonologist involvement, remain sparse.ObjectiveWe report a single-center analysis of COPD patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to those without COPD. Primary outcomes include ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality.MethodsWe evaluated all patients ≥40 years admitted with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between February 2020 and February 2021. COPD was defined by documented ICD-10 diagnosis of COPD, confirmed smoking history, and active bronchodilator use. We compared outcomes between COPD patients and the remainder of the COVID-19 cohort. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbid conditions.ResultsOf 1537 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 122 (7.9%) carried a diagnosis of COPD. The COPD cohort was older (74 ± 13 vs 66 ± 15 years, P < 0.001) and more often former smokers (P < 0.001). Comorbid conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease were more prevalent in the COPD group (P < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbid conditions, the COPD cohort had higher severity scores and trended towards fewer hospital-free days. Among patients with COPD, pre-hospital use of aspirin was associated with decreased ICU admissions (aHR 0.56, P = 0.049) and mechanical ventilation (aHR 0.25, P = 0.008), while LAMAs (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (aHR 0.34, P = 0.047). Involvement of pulmonology in pre-hospital management of COPD was not found to significantly affect outcomes.ConclusionWhen corrected for comorbid illnesses, COPD was associated with more severe disease but not with increased ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital mortality rates. Among COPD patients, prehospital treatment with aspirin and COPD-directed therapies were associated with improved outcomes.

ObjectivesAirway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest represents a fundamental component of resuscitative efforts, yet little is known about temporal trends in intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Our objective was to investigate changes in in-hospital cardiac arrest airway management over time and in response to national guideline updates.DesignObservational cohort study of a prospectively collected database.SettingMulticenter study of hospitals participating in the "Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation" registry from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2018.SubjectsAdult patients who experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest and did not have an invasive airway in place prior to the arrest.InterventionsThe primary outcome was the rate of intra-arrest intubation from 2001 to 2018. We constructed multivariable regression models with generalized estimating equations to determine the annual adjusted odds of intubation. We also assessed the timing of intubation relative to the onset of pulselessness and other arrest measures. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to assess the association between the 2010 Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline update and intubation rates.Measurements and main resultsOne thousand sixty-six eight hundred patients from 797 hospitals were included. From 2001 to 2018, the percentage of patients intubated during an arrest decreased from 69% to 55% for all rhythms, 73% to 60% for nonshockable rhythms, and 58% to 36% for shockable rhythms (p < 0.001 for trend for all 3 groups). The median time from onset of pulselessness to intubation increased from 5 minutes in 2001 (interquartile range, 2-8 min) to 6 minutes in 2018 (interquartile range, 4-10 min) (p < 0.001 for trend). Following the 2010 guideline update, there was a downward step change and a steeper decrease over time in the rate of intubation as compared to the preintervention period (p < 0.001).ConclusionsEndotracheal intubation rates during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased significantly over time, with a more substantial decline following the updated 2010 guideline that prioritized chest compressions over airway management.

BackgroundWhile cannabis is known to have immunomodulatory properties, the clinical consequences of its use on outcomes in COVID-19 have not been extensively evaluated. We aimed to assess whether cannabis users hospitalized for COVID-19 had improved outcomes compared to non-users.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 1831 patients admitted to two medical centers in Southern California with a diagnosis of COVID-19. We evaluated outcomes including NIH COVID-19 Severity Score, need for supplemental oxygen, ICU (intensive care unit) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization, and in-hospital death for cannabis users and non-users. Cannabis use was reported in the patient's social history. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body-mass index, sex, race, tobacco smoking history, and comorbidities known to be risk factors for COVID-19 mortality between cannabis users and non-users.ResultsOf 1831 patients admitted with COVID-19, 69 patients reported active cannabis use (4% of the cohort). Active users were younger (44 years vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), less often diabetic (23.2% vs 37.2%, p < 0.021), and more frequently active tobacco smokers (20.3% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001) compared to non-users. Notably, active users had lower levels of inflammatory markers upon admission than non-users-CRP (C-reactive protein) (3.7 mg/L vs 7.6 mg/L, p < 0.001), ferritin (282 μg/L vs 622 μg/L, p < 0.001), D-dimer (468 ng/mL vs 1140 ng/mL, p = 0.017), and procalcitonin (0.10 ng/mL vs 0.15 ng/mL, p = 0.001). Based on univariate analysis, cannabis users had significantly better outcomes compared to non-users as reflected in lower NIH scores (5.1 vs 6.0, p < 0.001), shorter hospitalization (4 days vs 6 days, p < 0.001), lower ICU admission rates (12% vs 31%, p < 0.001), and less need for mechanical ventilation (6% vs 17%, p = 0.027). Using propensity matching, differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between cannabis users and non-users, nevertheless ICU admission was 12 percentage points lower (p = 0.018) and intubation rates were 6 percentage points lower (p = 0.017) in cannabis users.ConclusionsThis retrospective cohort study suggests that active cannabis users hospitalized with COVID-19 had better clinical outcomes compared with non-users, including decreased need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation. However, our results need to be interpreted with caution given the limitations of a retrospective analysis. Prospective and observational studies will better elucidate the effects cannabis use in COVID-19 patients.

BackgroundMillions of Americans are living in food deserts in the United States, however the role of the local food environment on COPD has not been studied. The aim of this study is to determine the association between food deserts and COPD-related outcomes.MethodIn this cross-sectional analysis we linked data collected from SPIROMICS (SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study) between 2010 and 2015 and food desert data, defined as an underserved area that lacks access to affordable healthy foods, from the Food Access Research Atlas. COPD outcomes include percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1%), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), 6-min walk distance test (6MWD), exacerbations, and air trapping. We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the association between living in food deserts and respiratory outcomes, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, income, marital status, BMI, smoking status, pack years, and urban status RESULTS: Among 2713 participants, 22% lived in food deserts. Participants living in food deserts were less likely to be white and more likely to have a lower income than those who did not live in food deserts. In the adjusted model controlling for demographics and individual income, living in food deserts was associated lower FEV1% (β = - 2.51, P = 0.046), higher air trapping (β = 2.47, P = 0.008), worse SGRQ (β = 3.48, P = 0.001) and CAT (β = 1.20, P = 0.003) scores, and 56% greater odds of severe exacerbations (P = 0.004). Results were consistent when looking at food access alone, regardless of whether participants lived in low income areas.ConclusionsFindings suggest an independent association between food desert and food access alone with COPD outcomes. Health program planning may benefit from addressing disparities in access to food.

BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated adoption of scarce resource allocation (SRA) policies, we sought to rapidly deploy a novel survey to ascertain community values and preferences for SRA and to test the utility of a brief intervention to improve knowledge of and values alignment with a new SRA policy. Given social distancing and precipitous evolution of the pandemic, Internet-enabled recruitment was deemed the best method to engage a community-based sample. We quantify the efficiency and acceptability of this Internet-based recruitment for engaging a trial cohort and describe the approach used for implementing a health-related trial entirely online using off-the-shelf tools.MethodsWe recruited 1971 adult participants (≥ 18 years) via engagement with community partners and organizations and outreach through direct and social media messaging. We quantified response rate and participant characteristics of our sample, examine sample representativeness, and evaluate potential non-response bias.ResultsRecruitment was similarly derived from direct referral from partner organizations and broader social media based outreach, with extremely low study entry from organic (non-invited) search activity. Of social media platforms, Facebook was the highest yield recruitment source. Bot activity was present but minimal and identifiable through meta-data and engagement behavior. Recruited participants differed from broader populations in terms of sex, ethnicity, and education, but had similar prevalence of chronic conditions. Retention was satisfactory, with entrance into the first follow-up survey for 61% of those invited.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that rapid recruitment into a longitudinal intervention trial via social media is feasible, efficient, and acceptable. Recruitment in conjunction with community partners representing target populations, and with outreach across multiple platforms, is recommended to optimize sample size and diversity. Trial implementation, engagement tracking, and retention are feasible with off-the-shelf tools using preexisting platforms.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373135 . Registered on May 4, 2020.

BackgroundDetecting delirium with standardized assessment tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is important, but such detection is frequently hampered by poor documentation and inappropriate "unable to assess" responses (in noncomatose patients).ObjectiveTo identify patient, clinical, and workplace factors that may impede or facilitate appropriate delirium assessment through use of the CAM-ICU, specifically documentation and inappropriate "unable to assess" responses.MethodsAn electronic health record-based data set was used to quantify CAM-ICU documentation and inappropriate "unable to assess" responses during 24 months. Associated patient (eg, age), clinical (eg, diagnosis), and workplace (eg, geographic location within the ICU, shift) factors were evaluated with multivariable regression.ResultsOf 28 586 CAM-ICU documentation opportunities, 66% were documented; 16% of documentations in alert or lightly sedated patients had inappropriate "unable to assess" responses. Night shift was associated with lower CAM-ICU documentation rates (P = .001), whereas physical restraints and location on side B (rather than side A) of the ICU were associated with higher documentation rates (P < .05 for both). Age older than 80 years, non-White race, intubation, and physical restraints were associated with more inappropriate "unable to assess" responses (all P < .05), as was infusion of propofol, midazolam, dexmedetomidine, or fentanyl (all P < .05).ConclusionData from electronic health records can identify patient, clinical, and workplace factors associated with CAM-ICU documentation and inappropriate "unable to assess" responses, which can help target quality improvement efforts related to delirium assessment.

BackgroundMild expiratory flow limitation may not be recognized using traditional spirometric criteria based on the ratio of FEV1/FVC.Research questionDoes slow vital capacity (SVC) instead of FVC increase the sensitivity of spirometry to identify patients with early or mild obstructive lung disease?Study design and methodsWe included 854 current and former smokers from the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study cohort with a postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≥ 0.7 and FEV1 % predicted of ≥ 80% at enrollment. We compared baseline characteristics, chest CT scan features, exacerbations, and progression to COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC, < 0.7) during the follow-up period between 734 participants with postbronchodilator FEV1/SVC of ≥ 0.7 and 120 with postbronchodilator FEV1/SVC < 0.7 at the enrollment. We performed multivariate linear and logistic regression models and negative binomial and interval-censored proportion hazards regression models adjusted for demographics and smoking exposure to examine the association of FEV1/SVC < 0.7 with those characteristics and outcomes.ResultsParticipants with FEV1/SVC < 0.7 were older and had lower FEV1 and more emphysema than those with FEV1/SVC ≥ 0.7. In adjusted analysis, individuals with postbronchodilator FEV1/SVC < 0.7 showed a greater percentage of emphysema by 0.45% (95% CI, 0.09%-0.82%), percentage of gas trapping by 2.52% (95% CI, 0.59%-4.44%), and percentage of functional small airways disease based on parametric response mapping by 2.78% (95% CI, 0.72%-4.83%) at baseline than those with FEV1/SVC ≥ 0.7. During a median follow-up time of 1,500 days, an FEV1/SVC < 0.7 was not associated with total exacerbations (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.61; 95% CI, 0.97-2.64), but was associated with severe exacerbations (IRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.04-4.89). An FEV1/SVC < 0.7 was associated with progression to COPD during a 3-year follow-up even after adjustment for demographics and smoking exposure (hazard ratio, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.71-5.72). We found similar results when we examined the association of prebronchodilator FEV1/SVC < 0.7 or FEV1/SVC less than the lower limit of normal with chest CT scan features and progression to COPD.InterpretationLow FEV1 to SVC in current and former smokers with normal spirometry results can identify individuals with CT scan features of COPD who are at risk for severe exacerbations and is associated with progression to COPD in the future.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01969344T4; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

BackgroundHospital readmission rates decreased for myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia with implementation of the first phase of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). It is not established whether readmissions fell for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an HRRP condition added in 2014.ObjectiveWe sought to determine whether HRRP penalties influenced COPD readmissions among Medicare, Medicaid, or privately insured patients.DesignWe analyzed a retrospective cohort, evaluating readmissions across implementation periods for HRRP penalties ("pre-HRRP" January 2010-April 2011, "implementation" May 2011-September 2012, "partial penalty" October 2012-September 2014, and "full penalty" October 2014-December 2016).PatientsWe assessed discharged patients ≥ 40 years old with COPD versus those with HRRP Phase 1 conditions (AMI, CHF, and pneumonia) or non-HRRP residual diagnoses in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.InterventionsHRRP was announced and implemented during this period, forming a natural experiment.MeasurementsWe calculated differences-in-differences (DID) for 30-day COPD versus HRRP Phase 1 and non-HRRP readmissions.Key resultsCOPD discharges for 1.2 million Medicare enrollees were compared with 22 million non-HRRP and 3.4 million HRRP Phase 1 discharges. COPD readmissions decreased from 19 to 17% over the study. This reduction was significantly greater than non-HRRP conditions (DID - 0.41%), but not HRRP Phase 1 (DID + 0.02%). A parallel trend was observed in the privately insured, with significant reduction compared with non-HRRP (DID - 0.83%), but not HRRP Phase 1 conditions (DID - 0.45%). Non-significant reductions occurred in Medicaid (DID - 0.52% vs. non-HRRP and - 0.21% vs. Phase 1 conditions).ConclusionsIn Medicare, HRRP implementation was associated with reductions in COPD readmissions compared with non-HRRP controls but not versus other HRRP conditions. Parallel findings were observed in commercial insurance, but not in Medicaid. Condition-specific penalties may not reduce readmissions further than existing HRRP trends.

BackgroundReadmissions after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Understanding attributable diagnoses at readmission would improve readmission reduction strategies.ObjectivesDetermine factors that portend 30-day readmissions attributable to COPD versus non-COPD diagnoses among patients discharged following COPD exacerbations.Design, setting, and participantsWe analyzed COPD discharges in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2016 using inclusion and readmission definitions in HRRP.Main outcomes and measuresWe evaluated readmission odds for COPD versus non-COPD returns using a multilevel, multinomial logistic regression model. Patient-level covariates included age, sex, community characteristics, payer, discharge disposition, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Hospital-level covariates included hospital ownership, teaching status, volume of annual discharges, and proportion of Medicaid patients.ResultsOf 1,622,983 (a weighted effective sample of 3,743,164) eligible COPD hospitalizations, 17.25% were readmitted within 30 days (7.69% for COPD and 9.56% for other diagnoses). Sepsis, heart failure, and respiratory infections were the most common non-COPD return diagnoses. Patients readmitted for COPD were younger with fewer comorbidities than patients readmitted for non-COPD. COPD returns were more prevalent the first two days after discharge than non-COPD returns. Comorbidity was a stronger driver for non-COPD (odds ratio [OR] 1.19) than COPD (OR 1.04) readmissions.ConclusionThirty-day readmissions following COPD exacerbations are common, and 55% of them are attributable to non-COPD diagnoses at the time of return. Higher burden of comorbidity is observed among non-COPD than COPD rehospitalizations. Readmission reduction efforts should focus intensively on factors beyond COPD disease management to reduce readmissions considerably by aggressively attempting to mitigate comorbid conditions.

PurposeTo describe the trajectory of respiratory failure in COVID-19 and explore factors associated with risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).Materials and methodsA retrospective, observational cohort study of 112 inpatient adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12 and April 16, 2020. Data were manually extracted from electronic medical records. Multivariable and Univariable regression were used to evaluate association between baseline characteristics, initial serum markers and the outcome of IMV.ResultsOur cohort had median age of 61 (IQR 45-74) and was 66% male. In-hospital mortality was 6% (7/112). ICU mortality was 12.8% (6/47), and 18% (5/28) for those requiring IMV. Obesity (OR 5.82, CI 1.74-19.48), former (OR 8.06, CI 1.51-43.06) and current smoking status (OR 10.33, CI 1.43-74.67) were associated with IMV after adjusting for age, sex, and high prevalence comorbidities by multivariable analysis. Initial absolute lymphocyte count (OR 0.33, CI 0.11-0.96), procalcitonin (OR 1.27, CI 1.02-1.57), IL-6 (OR 1.17, CI 1.03-1.33), ferritin (OR 1.05, CI 1.005-1.11), LDH (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.17) and CRP (OR 1.13, CI 1.06-1.21), were associated with IMV by univariate analysis.ConclusionsObesity, smoking history, and elevated inflammatory markers were associated with increased need for IMV in patients with COVID-19.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S220164.].

BackgroundReadmissions following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are prevalent and costly. Multimorbidity is common in COPD and understanding how comorbidity influences readmission risk will enable health systems to manage these complex patients.ObjectivesWe compared two commonly used comorbidity indices published by Charlson and Elixhauser regarding their ability to estimate readmission odds in COPD and determine which one provided a superior model.MethodsWe analyzed discharge records for COPD from the Nationwide Readmissions Database spanning 2010 to 2016. Inclusion and readmission criteria from the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program were utilized. Elixhauser and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were calculated from published methodology. A mixed-effects logistic regression model with random intercepts for hospital clusters was fit for each comorbidity index, including year, patient-level, and hospital-level covariates to estimate odds of thirty-day readmissions. Sensitivity analyses included testing age inclusion thresholds and model stability across time.ResultsIn analysis of 1.6 million COPD discharges, readmission odds increased by 9% for each half standard deviation increase of Charlson Index scores and 13% per half standard deviation increase of Elixhauser Index scores. Model fit was slightly better for the Elixhauser Index using information criteria. Model parameters were stable in our sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsBoth comorbidity indices provide meaningful information in prediction readmission odds in COPD with slightly better model fit in the Elixhauser model. Incorporation of comorbidity information into risk prediction models and hospital discharge planning may be informative to mitigate readmissions.

Spirometry is the current gold standard for diagnosing and monitoring the progression of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). However, many current and former smokers who do not meet established spirometric criteria for the diagnosis of this disease have symptoms and clinical courses similar to those with diagnosed COPD. Large longitudinal observational studies following individuals at risk of developing COPD offer us additional insight into spirometric patterns of disease development and progression. Analysis of forced expiratory maneuver changes over time may allow us to better understand early changes predictive of progressive disease. This review discusses the theoretical ability of spirometry to capture fine pathophysiologic changes in early airway disease, highlights the shortcomings of current diagnostic criteria, and reviews existing evidence for spirometric measures which may be used to better detect early airflow impairment.

ObjectiveBronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is prevalent in COPD, but its clinical implications remain unclear. We explored the significance of BDR, defined by post-bronchodilator change in FEV1 (BDRFEV1) as a measure reflecting the change in flow and in FVC (BDRFVC) reflecting the change in volume.MethodsWe analyzed 2974 participants from a multicenter observational study designed to identify varying COPD phenotypes (SPIROMICS). We evaluated the association of BDR with baseline clinical characteristics, rate of prospective exacerbations and mortality using negative binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsA majority of COPD participants exhibited BDR (52.7%). BDRFEV1 occurred more often in earlier stages of COPD, while BDRFVC occurred more frequently in more advanced disease. When defined by increases in either FEV1 or FVC, BDR was associated with a self-reported history of asthma, but not with blood eosinophil counts. BDRFVC was more prevalent in subjects with greater emphysema and small airway disease on CT. In a univariate analysis, BDRFVC was associated with increased exacerbations and mortality, although no significance was found in a model adjusted for post-bronchodilator FEV1.ConclusionWith advanced airflow obstruction in COPD, BDRFVC is more prevalent in comparison to BDRFEV1 and correlates with the extent of emphysema and degree of small airway disease. Since these associations appear to be related to the impairment of FEV1, BDRFVC itself does not define a distinct phenotype nor can it be more predictive of outcomes, but it can offer additional insights into the pathophysiologic mechanism in advanced COPD.Clinical trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01969344T4.

BackgroundThe mechanism by which various classes of medication reduce COPD exacerbation risk remains unknown. We hypothesized a correlation between reduced exacerbation risk and improvement in airway patency as measured according to FEV1.MethodsBy systematic review, COPD trials were identified that reported therapeutic changes in predose FEV1 (dFEV1) and occurrence of moderate to severe exacerbations. Using meta-regression analysis, a model was generated with dFEV1 as the moderator variable and the absolute difference in exacerbation rate (RD), ratio of exacerbation rates (RRs), or hazard ratio (HR) as dependent variables.ResultsThe analysis of RD and RR included 119,227 patients, and the HR analysis included 73,475 patients. For every 100-mL change in predose FEV1, the HR decreased by 21% (95% CI, 17-26; P < .001; R2 = 0.85) and the absolute exacerbation rate decreased by 0.06 per patient per year (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .009; R2 = 0.05), which corresponded to an RR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .001; R2 = 0.20). The relationship with exacerbation risk remained statistically significant across multiple subgroup analyses.ConclusionsA significant correlation between increased FEV1 and lower COPD exacerbation risk suggests that airway patency is an important mechanism responsible for this effect.