Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising tool for reducing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of previously effective CDS on antibiotic-prescribing rates for ARIs when adapted and implemented in diverse primary care settings. DESIGN/METHODS:Cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) implementing a CDS tool designed to guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and pneumonia. SETTING/METHODS:Two large academic health system primary care networks with a mix of providers. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All primary care practices within each health system were invited. All providers within participating clinic were considered a participant. Practices were randomized selection to a control or intervention group. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Intervention practice providers had access to an integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) system designed to determine the risk of bacterial infection from reason for visit of sore throat, cough, or upper respiratory infection and guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment. MAIN OUTCOME(S)/UNASSIGNED:Change in overall antibiotic prescription rates. MEASURE(S)/UNASSIGNED:Frequency, rates, and type of antibiotics prescribed in intervention and controls groups. RESULTS:33 primary care practices participated with 541 providers and 100,573 patient visits. Intervention providers completed the tool in 6.9% of eligible visits. Antibiotics were prescribed in 35% and 36% of intervention and control visits, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference. There were also no differences in rates of orders for rapid streptococcal tests (RR, 0.94; P = 0.11) or chest X-rays (RR, 1.01; P = 0.999) between groups. CONCLUSIONS:The iCPR tool was not effective in reducing antibiotic prescription rates for upper respiratory infections in diverse primary care settings. This has implications for the generalizability of CDS tools as they are adapted to heterogeneous clinical contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02534987). Registered August 26, 2015 at https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Introduction. COVID-19 has rapidly emerged as a pandemic infection that has caused significant mortality and economic losses. Potential therapies and prophylaxis against COVID-19 are urgently needed to combat this novel infection. As a result of in vitro evidence suggesting zinc sulphate may be efficacious against COVID-19, our hospitals began using zinc sulphate as add-on therapy to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.Aim. To compare outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients ordered to receive hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc sulphate versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.Methodology. This was a retrospective observational study. Data was collected from medical records for all patients with admission dates ranging from 2 March 2020 through to 11 April 2020. Initial clinical characteristics on presentation, medications given during the hospitalization, and hospital outcomes were recorded. The study included patients admitted to any of four acute care NYU Langone Health Hospitals in New York City. Patients included were admitted to the hospital with at least one positive COVID-19 test and had completed their hospitalization. Patients were excluded from the study if they were never admitted to the hospital or if there was an order for other investigational therapies for COVID-19.Results. Patients taking zinc sulphate in addition to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (n=411) and patients taking hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone (n=521) did not differ in age, race, sex, tobacco use or relevant comorbidities. The addition of zinc sulphate did not impact the length of hospitalization, duration of ventilation or intensive care unit (ICU) duration. In univariate analyses, zinc sulphate increased the frequency of patients being discharged home, and decreased the need for ventilation, admission to the ICU and mortality or transfer to hospice for patients who were never admitted to the ICU. After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulphate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95 % CI 1.12-2.09) and reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice among patients who did not require ICU level of care remained significant (OR 0.449, 95 % CI 0.271-0.744).Conclusion. This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulphate may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Preliminary data on SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests that some immunocompromised hosts experience worse outcomes. We performed a retrospective matched cohort study to characterize outcomes in HIV-positive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS:Leveraging data collected from electronic medical records for all patients hospitalized at NYU Langone Health with COVID-19 between March 2, 2020 and April 23, 2020, we matched 21 HIV-positive patients to 42 non-HIV patients using a greedy nearest neighbor algorithm. Admission characteristics, laboratory results, and hospital outcomes were recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS:While there was a trend toward increased rates of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality in HIV-positive patients, these differences were not statistically significant. Rates for these outcomes in our cohort are similar to those previously published for all patients hospitalized with COVID-19. HIV-positive patients had significantly higher admission and peak CRP values. Other inflammatory markers did not differ significantly between groups, though HIV-positive patients tended to have higher peak values during their clinical course. Three HIV-positive patients had superimposed bacterial pneumonia with positive sputum cultures, and all three patients expired during hospitalization. There was no difference in frequency of thrombotic events or myocardial infarction between these groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study provides evidence that HIV coinfection does not significantly impact presentation, hospital course, or outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, when compared to matched non-HIV patients. A larger study is required to determine if the trends we observed apply to all HIV-positive patients.

OBJECTIVE:Patients increasingly access radiology results through digital portals. We compared patient satisfaction and understanding of radiology results when received through an electronic patient portal versus direct communication from providers. METHODS:tests and logistic regression. RESULTS:Of 1,005 survey respondents, 87.8% (882 of 1,005) reported having received their imaging test results, with 486 (48.4%) first being notified through the patient portal and 396 (39.4%) via direct provider communication. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with timing regardless of whether they first received the results through the patient portal or through direct provider communication (88.8%-89.9%). Patients who first received their results through the patient portal reported a lesser degree of perceived understanding than those who first received their results through direct provider communication (26.7% versus 47.8%; P < .001). Patients were less likely to report clear understanding for advanced imaging (CT or MRI) than ultrasound or x-rays (29.3% versus 40.3% versus 38.2%, respectively; P = .02). Patient characteristics showed no association with understanding in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As online portal release of radiology results to patients becomes commonplace, efforts may be warranted to improve patient experience when first receiving their radiology results online.

OBJECTIVE:To describe outcomes of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States, and the clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with severity of illness. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Single academic medical center in New York City and Long Island. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:5279 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection between 1 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. The final date of follow up was 5 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Outcomes were admission to hospital, critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice care, or death), and discharge to hospice care or death. Predictors included patient characteristics, medical history, vital signs, and laboratory results. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and competing risk survival analysis for mortality. RESULTS:Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged. The strongest risk for hospital admission was associated with age, with an odds ratio of >2 for all age groups older than 44 years and 37.9 (95% confidence interval 26.1 to 56.0) for ages 75 years and older. Other risks were heart failure (4.4, 2.6 to 8.0), male sex (2.8, 2.4 to 3.2), chronic kidney disease (2.6, 1.9 to 3.6), and any increase in body mass index (BMI) (eg, for BMI >40: 2.5, 1.8 to 3.4). The strongest risks for critical illness besides age were associated with heart failure (1.9, 1.4 to 2.5), BMI >40 (1.5, 1.0 to 2.2), and male sex (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8). Admission oxygen saturation of <88% (3.7, 2.8 to 4.8), troponin level >1 (4.8, 2.1 to 10.9), C reactive protein level >200 (5.1, 2.8 to 9.2), and D-dimer level >2500 (3.9, 2.6 to 6.0) were, however, more strongly associated with critical illness than age or comorbidities. Risk of critical illness decreased significantly over the study period. Similar associations were found for mortality alone. CONCLUSIONS:Age and comorbidities were found to be strong predictors of hospital admission and to a lesser extent of critical illness and mortality in people with covid-19; however, impairment of oxygen on admission and markers of inflammation were most strongly associated with critical illness and mortality. Outcomes seem to be improving over time, potentially suggesting improvements in care.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate the incidence and spectrum of neuroimaging findings and their prognostic role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York City. METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study of 3218 COVID-19 confirmed patients admitted to a major healthcare system (three hospitals) in New York City between March 1, 2020 and April 13, 2020. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records, and particularly data of all neurological symptoms were extracted from the imaging reports. Four neuroradiologists evaluated all neuroimaging studies for acute neuroimaging findings related to COVID-19. RESULTS:14.1% of admitted COVID-19 patients had neuroimaging and this accounted for only 5.5% of the total imaging studies. Acute stroke was the most common finding on neuro-imaging, seen in 92.5% of patients with positive neuro-imaging studies, and present in 1.1% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients with acute large ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke had much higher mortality risk adjusted for age, BMI and hypertension compared to those COVID-19 patients without neuroimaging. (Odds Ratio 6.02 by LR; Hazard Ratio 2.28 by CRR). CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates acute stroke is the most common neuroimaging finding among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Detection of an acute stroke is a strong prognostic marker of poor outcome. Our study also highlights the fact there is limited use of neuroimaging in these patients due to multiple logistical constraints.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the immediate and 3- and 5-year outcomes of patients with clinical stage T1 (cT1) biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated by image-guided percutaneous cryoablation at a regional interventional oncology center. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A prospectively maintained local interventional radiology database identified patients with cT1 RCC lesions that were treated by percutaneous cryoablation. Technical success, procedural complications (graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification system), and the residual unablated tumor rate were collated. Local tumor progression-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS. A total of 180 patients with 185 separate cT1 RCC lesions were identified. Mean patient age was 68.4 years (range, 34.1-88.9 years) and 52 patients (28.9%) were women. There were 168 (90.8%) and 17 (9.2%) cT1a and cT1b lesions, respectively, with a mean lesion size of 28.5 mm (range, 11-58 mm). Technical success was achieved in 183 of 185 (98.9%) patients. The major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ grade III) was 2.2% (four out of 185). Residual unablated tumor on the first follow-up scan was identified in four of 183 tumors (2.2%). Estimated local tumor progression-free survival at 3 and 5 years was 98.3% and 94.9%, respectively. No distant metastases or deaths attributable to RCC occurred. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) before the procedure was 72.4 ± 18.5 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m² and this was not statistically significantly different after the procedure (69.7 ± 18.8 mL/min/1.73 m²), at 1 year (70.7 ± 16.4 mL/min/1.73 m²), or at 2 years (69.8 ± 18.9 mL/min/1.73 m²) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION. These data add to the accumulating evidence that image-guided cryoablation is an efficacious treatment for selected cT1 RCC with a low complication rate and ro bust 3- and 5-year outcomes.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:This paper seeks to describe best practices for conducting cross-language research with individuals who have a language barrier. DESIGN/METHODS:Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Research methods papers addressing cross-language research issues published between 2000-2017. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING/CONCLUSIONS:Rigorous cross-language research involves the appropriate use of interpreters during the research process, systematic planning for how to address the language barrier between participant and researcher and the use of reliably and validly translated survey instruments (when applicable). Biases rooted in those who enter data into "big data" systems may influence data quality and analytic approaches in large observational studies focused on linking patient language preference to health outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cross-language research methods can help ensure that those individuals with language barriers have their voices contributing to the evidence informing healthcare practice and policies that shape health services implementation and financing. Understanding the inherent conscious and unconscious biases of those conducting research with this population and how this may emerge in research studies is also an important part of producing rigorous, reliable, and valid cross-language research. IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:This study synthesized methodological recommendations for cross-language research studies with the goal to improve the quality of future research and expand the evidence-base for clinical practice. Clear methodological recommendations were generated that can improve research rigor and quality of cross-language qualitative and quantitative studies. The recommendations generated here have the potential to have an impact on the health and well-being of migrants around the world.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Heart failure (HF) readmission rates have plateaued despite scrutiny of hospital discharge practices. Many HF patients are discharged to skilled nursing facility (SNF) after hospitalization before returning home. Home healthcare (HHC) services received during the additional transition from SNF to home may affect readmission risk. Here, we examined whether receipt of HHC affects readmission risk during the transition from SNF to home following HF hospitalization. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Fee-for-service Medicare data, 2012 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, hospitalized with HF who were subsequently discharged to SNF and then discharged home. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:The primary outcome was unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge to home from SNF. We compared time to readmission between those with and without HHC services using a Cox model. RESULTS:Of 67 585 HF hospitalizations discharged to SNFs and subsequently discharged home, 13 257 (19.6%) were discharged with HHC, and 54 328 (80.4%) were discharged without HHC. Patients discharged home from SNFs with HHC had lower 30-day readmission rates than patients discharged without HHC (22.8% vs 24.5%; P < .0001) and a longer time to readmission. In an adjusted model, the hazard for readmission was 0.91 (0.86-0.95) with receipt of HHC. CONCLUSIONS:Recipients of HHC were less likely to be readmitted within 30 days vs those discharged home without HHC. This is unexpected, as patients discharged with HHC likely have more functional impairments. Since patients requiring a SNF stay after hospital discharge may have additional needs, they may particularly benefit from restorative therapy through HHC; however, only approximately 20% received such services.