Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Testing and Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study in an Integrated Health System: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 6

Background: Racial disparities exist in outcomes after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Objective: To evaluate the contribution of race/ethnicity in SARS-CoV-2 testing, infection, and outcomes. Design: Retrospective cohort study (1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020). Setting: Integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Participants: Adult health plan members. Measurements: Age, sex, neighborhood deprivation index, comorbid conditions, acute physiology indices, and race/ethnicity; SARS-CoV-2 testing and incidence of positive test results; and hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality. Results: Among 3 481 716 eligible members, 42.0% were White, 6.4% African American, 19.9% Hispanic, and 18.6% Asian; 13.0% were of other or unknown race. Of eligible members, 91 212 (2.6%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 3686 had positive results (overall incidence, 105.9 per 100 000 persons; by racial group, White, 55.1; African American, 123.1; Hispanic, 219.6; Asian, 111.7; other/unknown, 79.3). African American persons had the highest unadjusted testing and mortality rates, White persons had the lowest testing rates, and those with other or unknown race had the lowest mortality rates. Compared with White persons, adjusted testing rates among non-White persons were marginally higher, but infection rates were significantly higher; adjusted odds ratios [aORs] for African American persons, Hispanic persons, Asian persons, and persons of other/unknown race were 2.01 (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.31), 3.93 (CI, 3.59 to 4.30), 2.19 (CI, 1.98 to 2.42), and 1.57 (CI, 1.38 to 1.78), respectively. Geographic analyses showed that infections clustered in areas with higher proportions of non-White persons. Compared with White persons, adjusted hospitalization rates for African American persons, Hispanic persons, Asian persons, and persons of other/unknown race were 1.47 (CI, 1.03 to 2.09), 1.42 (CI, 1.11 to 1.82), 1.47 (CI, 1.13 to 1.92), and 1.03 (CI, 0.72 to 1.46), respectively. Adjusted analyses showed no racial differences in inpatient mortality or total mortality during the study period. For testing, comorbid conditions made the greatest relative contribution to model explanatory power (77.9%); race only accounted for 8.1%. Likelihood of infection was largely due to race (80.3%). For other outcomes, age was most important; race only contributed 4.5% for hospitalization, 12.8% for admission illness severity, 2.3% for in-hospital death, and 0.4% for any death. Limitation: The study involved an insured population in a highly integrated health system. Conclusion: Race was the most important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection. After infection, race was associated with increased hospitalization risk but not mortality. Primary Funding Source: The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

The Safety and Immunologic Effectiveness of the Live Varicella-Zoster Vaccine in Patients Receiving Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 11

Background: The safety and effectiveness of live virus vaccines, such as the varicella-zoster vaccine, are unknown in patients with inflammatory diseases receiving immunomodulatory therapy such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). Objective: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the live attenuated zoster vaccine (ZVL) in patients receiving TNFis. Design: Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02538341) Setting: Academic and community-based rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology practices. Patients: Adults aged 50 years or older receiving TNFis for any indication. Intervention: Random assignment to ZVL versus placebo. Measurements: Glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) from serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells measured at baseline and 6 weeks after vaccination. Suspected varicella infection or herpes zoster was clinically assessed using digital photographs and polymerase chain reaction on vesicular fluid. Results: Between March 2015 and December 2018, 617 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ZVL (n = 310) or placebo (n = 307) at 33 centers. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD, 7.5); 66.1% of participants were female, 90% were White, 8.2% were Black, and 5.9% were Hispanic. The most common TNFi indications were rheumatoid arthritis (57.6%) and psoriatic arthritis (24.1%); TNFi medications were adalimumab (32.7%), infliximab (31.3%), etanercept (21.2%), golimumab (9.1%), and certolizumab (5.7%). Concomitant therapies included methotrexate (48.0%) and oral glucocorticoids (10.5%). Through week 6, no cases of confirmed varicella infection were found; cumulative incidence of varicella infection or shingles was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 1.2%). At 6 weeks, compared with baseline, the mean increases in geometric mean fold rise as measured by gpELISA and ELISpot were 1.33 percentage points (CI, 1.17 to 1.51 percentage points) and 1.39 percentage points (CI, 1.07 to 1.82 percentage points), respectively. Limitation: Potentially limited generalizability to patients receiving other types of immunomodulators. Conclusion: This trial informs safety concerns related to use of live virus vaccines in patients receiving biologics. Primary Funding Source: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the American College of Rheumatology.

Development of Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP), a Calculator to Predict Severe Disease or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Background: Predicting the clinical trajectory of individual patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging but necessary to inform clinical care. The majority of COVID-19 prognostic tools use only data present upon admission and do not incorporate changes occurring after admission. Objective: To develop the Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP) (https://rsconnect.biostat.jhsph.edu/covid_trajectory/), a novel tool that can provide dynamic risk predictions for progression from moderate disease to severe illness or death in patients with COVID-19 at any time within the first 14 days of their hospitalization. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study. Settings: Five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, D.C. Patients: Patients who were hospitalized between 5 March and 4 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed by nucleic acid test and symptomatic disease. Measurements: A clinical registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was the primary data source; data included demographic characteristics, admission source, comorbid conditions, time-varying vital signs, laboratory measurements, and clinical severity. Random forest for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis was applied to predict the 1-day and 7-day risks for progression to severe disease or death for any given day during the first 14 days of hospitalization. Results: Among 3163 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19, 228 (7%) became severely ill or died in the next 24 hours; an additional 355 (11%) became severely ill or died in the next 7 days. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 1-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.90) and 0.89 (CI, 0.87 to 0.91) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. The AUC for 7-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.83 (CI, 0.83 to 0.84) and 0.87 (CI, 0.86 to 0.89) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. Limitation: The SCARP tool was developed by using data from a single health system. Conclusion: Using the predictive power of RF-SLAM and longitudinal data from more than 3000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an interactive tool was developed that rapidly and accurately provides the probability of an individual patient's progression to severe illness or death on the basis of readily available clinical information. Primary Funding Source: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Masks and Face Coverings for the Lay Public: A Narrative Update: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 4

Whether and when to mandate the wearing of facemasks in the community to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 remains controversial. Published literature across disciplines about the role of masks in mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is summarized. Growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne indicates that infection control interventions must go beyond contact and droplet measures (such as handwashing and cleaning surfaces) and attend to masking and ventilation. Observational evidence suggests that masks work mainly by source control (preventing infected persons from transmitting the virus to others), but laboratory studies of mask filtration properties suggest that they could also provide some protection to wearers (protective effect). Even small reductions in individual transmission could lead to substantial reductions in population spread. To date, only 1 randomized controlled trial has examined a community mask recommendation. This trial did not identify a significant protective effect and was not designed to evaluate source control. Filtration properties and comfort vary widely across mask types. Masks may cause discomfort and communication difficulties. However, there is no evidence that masks result in significant physiologic decompensation or that risk compensation and fomite transmission are associated with mask wearing. The psychological effects of masks are culturally shaped; they may include threats to autonomy, social relatedness, and competence. Evidence suggests that the potential benefits of wearing masks likely outweigh the potential harms when SARS-CoV-2 is spreading in a community. However, mask mandates involve a tradeoff with personal freedom, so such policies should be pursued only if the threat is substantial and mitigation of spread cannot be achieved through other means.

Preterm Birth and Stillbirth During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sweden: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Food Insecurity and Weight Loss in an Underserved Primary Care Population: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Trial

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Acceptance: We May Need to Choose Our Battles

Clinical Endpoints for Evaluating Efficacy in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.

Cases in Precision Medicine: The Role of Polygenic Risk Scores in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been consistently associated with elevated breast cancer risk in cohort studies and are associated with risk in both women with and those without a family history of breast cancer. However, before clinical implementation, several issues must be addressed, including understanding the potential clinical utility and optimal method to communicate personalized screening recommendations that incorporate the PRS. Several trials are under way to answer some of these questions and facilitate clinical implementation. Because these PRSs have been developed in women of European ancestry, it is important to understand the limitations of their predictive ability in other ancestral groups. Finally, the value of the PRS will lie in considering it along with other clinical, familial, and rare genetic factors that are currently used in personalized risk assessment of breast cancer.

Ethical Framework for Assessing Manual and Digital Contact Tracing for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the traditional public health balance between benefiting the good of the community through contact tracing and restricting individual liberty. This article first analyzes important technical and ethical issues regarding new smartphone apps that facilitate contact tracing and exposure notification. It then presents a framework for assessing contact tracing, whether manual or digital: the effectiveness at mitigating the pandemic; acceptability of risks, particularly privacy; and equitable distribution of benefits and risks. Both manual and digital contact tracing require public trust, engagement of minority communities, prompt COVID-19 testing and return of results, and high adherence with physical distancing and use of masks.