Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Patients with CKD ha ve impaired immunity, increased risk of infection-related mortality, and worsened COVID-19 outcomes. However, data comparing nondialysis CKD and ESKD are sparse. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients with COVID-19 admitted to three hospitals in the New York area, between March 2 and August 27, 2020, were retrospectively studied using electronic health records. Patients were classified as those without CKD, those with nondialysis CKD, and those with ESKD, with outcomes including hospital mortality, ICU admission, and mortality rates. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 3905 patients, 588 (15%) had nondialysis CKD and 128 (3%) had ESKD. The nondialysis CKD and ESKD groups had a greater prevalence of comorbidities and higher admission D-dimer levels, whereas patients with ESKD had lower C-reactive protein levels at admission. ICU admission rates were similar across all three groups (23%-25%). The overall, unadjusted hospital mortality was 25%, and the mortality was 24% for those without CKD, 34% for those with nondialysis CKD, and 27% for those with ESKD. Among patients in the ICU, mortality was 56%, 64%, and 56%, respectively. Although patients with nondialysis CKD had higher odds of overall mortality versus those without CKD in univariate analysis (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.91), this was no longer significant in fully adjusted models (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.40). Also, ESKD status did not associate with a higher risk of mortality compared with non-CKD in adjusted analyses, but did have reduced mortality when compared with nondialysis CKD (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.95). Mortality rates declined precipitously after the first 2 months of the pandemic, from 26% to 14%, which was reflected in all three subgroups. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:In a diverse cohort of patients with COVID-19, we observed higher crude mortality rates for patients with nondialysis CKD and, to a lesser extent, ESKD, which were not significant after risk adjustment. Moreover, patients with ESKD appear to have better outcom es than those with nondialysis CKD.

BACKGROUND:It is estimated that up to 40% of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias cases can be prevented or delayed by addressing modifiable factors including those that influence vascular risk (hypertension, obesity, smoking, physical activity, diabetes). Prevention may be particularly important in the vascular dementia subtypes. Despite the supporting evidence, the rates of medical therapy to reduce vascular risk are not well described. METHOD/METHODS:We assessed the utilization of statins, aspirin, and blood pressure (BP) medications in adults age ≥65 years cared for at NYU Langone Health, as recorded in the electronic health record. We included two cohorts: cohort 1 included patients who were diagnosed with vascular dementia (VaD) at NYU Langone Barlow Center for Memory Evaluation between January 1, 2015 and June 24, 2019. Cohort 2 extended the inclusion to seniors with VD diagnosis by any NYU Langone physician. Definitions for vascular dementia, the covariates assessed, and medications that we included in each category are shown in Tables 1-3. RESULT/RESULTS:We included 419 and 3745 patients in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Table 4 shows the characteristics and medication adherence in cohorts 1 and 2. In cohort 1, the prescription rates for statins, aspirin, and BP medications were 66%, 66%, 70%. In cohort 2, the rates for statin, aspirin, and BP medications were 56%, 46%, and 65%, respectively. The differences between prescription rates in cohort 1 and 2 for the three medication groups were statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis of the utilization of cardiovascular medications among patients with vascular dementia illuminates potential gaps both among patients who receive care at specialty clinics, as well as the overall population with vascular dementia. The rates of medication utilization are higher for patients under the care of cognitive neurologists. Electronic health records can help identify large cohorts of patients who may benefit from improved access to preventative measures including cardiovascular medications.

BACKGROUND:As health-care spending rises internationally, policymakers have increasingly begun to look to improve health-care value. However, the precise definition of health-care value remains ambiguous. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review of the literature to understand how value has been defined in the context of health care. We searched PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, PolicyFile and Scopus between February and March 2020 to identify articles eligible for inclusion. Publications that defined value (including high or low value) using an element of cost and an element of outcomes were included in this review. No restrictions were placed on the date of publication. Articles were limited to those published in English. RESULTS:Out of 1750 publications screened, 46 met inclusion criteria. Among the 46 included articles, 22 focused on overall value, 19 on low value and 5 on high value. We developed a framework to categorize definitions based on three core domains: components, perspective and scope. Differences across these three domains contributed to significant variations in definitions of value. CONCLUSIONS:How value is defined has the potential to influence measurement and intervention strategies in meaningful ways. To effectively improve value in health-care systems, we must understand what is meant by value and the merits of different definitions.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Predictive studies play important roles in the development of models informing care for patients with COVID-19. Our concern is that studies producing ill-performing models may lead to inappropriate clinical decision-making. Thus, our objective is to summarise and characterise performance of prognostic models for COVID-19 on external data. METHODS:We performed a validation of parsimonious prognostic models for patients with COVID-19 from a literature search for published and preprint articles. Ten models meeting inclusion criteria were either (a) externally validated with our data against the model variables and weights or (b) rebuilt using original features if no weights were provided. Nine studies had internally or externally validated models on cohorts of between 18 and 320 inpatients with COVID-19. One model used cross-validation. Our external validation cohort consisted of 4444 patients with COVID-19 hospitalised between 1 March and 27 May 2020. RESULTS:Most models failed validation when applied to our institution's data. Included studies reported an average validation area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) of 0.828. Models applied with reported features averaged an AUROC of 0.66 when validated on our data. Models rebuilt with the same features averaged an AUROC of 0.755 when validated on our data. In both cases, models did not validate against their studies' reported AUROC values. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Published and preprint prognostic models for patients infected with COVID-19 performed substantially worse when applied to external data. Further inquiry is required to elucidate mechanisms underlying performance deviations. CONCLUSIONS:Clinicians should employ caution when applying models for clinical prediction without careful validation on local data.

BACKGROUND:Previous work has demonstrated that patients experience functional decline at 1-3 months post-discharge after COVID-19 hospitalization. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether symptoms persist further or improve over time, we followed patients discharged after hospitalization for severe COVID-19 to characterize their overall health status and their physical and mental health at 6 months post-hospital discharge. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 at a single health system, who required at minimum 6 l of supplemental oxygen during admission, had intact baseline functional status, and were discharged alive. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Overall health status, physical health, mental health, and dyspnea were assessed with validated surveys: the PROMIS® Global Health-10 and PROMIS® Dyspnea Characteristics instruments. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of 152 patients who completed the 1 month post-discharge survey, 126 (83%) completed the 6-month survey. Median age of 6-month respondents was 62; 40% were female. Ninety-three (74%) patients reported that their health had not returned to baseline at 6 months, and endorsed a mean of 7.1 symptoms. Participants' summary t-scores in both the physical health and mental health domains at 6 months (45.2, standard deviation [SD] 9.8; 47.4, SD 9.8, respectively) remained lower than their baseline (physical health 53.7, SD 9.4; mental health 54.2, SD 8.0; p<0.001). Overall, 79 (63%) patients reported shortness of breath within the prior week (median score 2 out of 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-5), vs 42 (33%) pre-COVID-19 infection (0, IQR 0-1)). A total of 11/124 (9%) patients without pre-COVID oxygen requirements still needed oxygen 6 months post-hospital discharge. One hundred and seven (85%) were still experiencing fatigue at 6 months post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS:Even 6 months after hospital discharge, the majority of patients report that their health has not returned to normal. Support and treatments to return these patients back to their pre-COVID baseline are urgently needed.