Zhang, Nan

Abstract Background Treating COVID-19 infection in SOT is challenging due to long-term use of immunosuppressive agents. REM is the only FDA-approved anti-viral for SARS-COV-2 infection. DEX showed decrease in mortality in the Recovery Trial. COVID-19 treatment guidelines for SOT patients are the same as NTP despite limited literature on those outcomes. Our primary objective was to determine if 30-day mortality was different between SOT and NTP matched cohorts using these 2 drugs. The secondary objectives included comparisons of length of stay (LOS), days on mechanical ventilation (DMV), and the use of other treatment modalities. Methods We retrospectively collected data for hospitalized SOT and NTP, 18 years and older, with pcr-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving REM and DEX from May 1, 2020, to October 10, 2020, at Mayo Clinic Florida. IRB approval was obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) or median (range) where appropriate, while categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Results Of 80 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 28 were SOT, and 52 were NTP. The SOT cohort was subcategorized below: SOT patients were significantly younger than NTP (p < .001). Further, SOT patients had significantly longer LOS (p = 0.043) and more COVID-19 modalities (75% vs. 36.5%, p = 0.002) compared to NTP. Among the 28 SOT patients, 2 of them died within 30 days of admission, and among the 52 NTP patients, 7 of them died within 30 days. The 30-d survival estimate for SOT group is 92.9% (95% CI: 83.8% - 100.0%) and for NTP group is 86.5% (95% CI: 77.7% - 96.3%). The log-rank test was not significant between the groups (p=0.37), but the NTP has a worse survival curve from the figure below. SOT-NTP Survival Curve Conclusion SOT group was younger, had longer LOS, and more COVID-related modalities. The 30-d survival estimate for SOT group is 92.9% and for NTP group is 86.5%, but the survival curve for NTP was worse likely secondary to age. Use of REM & DEX in SOT recipients is a valid recommendation. Disclosures Claudia R. Libertin, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support)

Introduction Prevalence rates of pelvic floor disorders in women in nonmetropolitan communities compared with metropolitan communities are unknown. We hypothesize that the rates are higher in women in nonmetropolitan communities. Methods We accessed the health survey data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 2009 to 2010 divided by geocodes into nonmetropolitan (<50,000 inhabitants) and metropolitan communities (>50,000). Responses were analyzed for the following conditions: urinary incontinence and nocturia, bowel urgency and anal incontinence, and symptomatic vaginal bulge. Age-adjusted prevalence rates were estimated using logistic regression. Results The 2009–2010 NHANES survey was completed nationwide by 302 women in nonmetropolitan communities and 2201 women in metropolitan communities. Overall, prevalence rates of PFDs did not significantly differ between groups. Prevalence rates of urinary incontinence and nocturia at least weekly were similar between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan groups (16.2% vs 14.6%, P = 0.47), with stress incontinence being more common than urgency and other types of incontinence (40% vs 23% and 8%). Women in metropolitan communities reported more bowel urgency than women in nonmetropolitan communities (33.3% vs 26.8%, P = 0.02); however, prevalence rates between both groups are similar with regards to anal incontinence at least once a month or more (9.2% vs 9.0%, P = 0.76). Prolapse symptoms were also not significantly different between the groups (2.4% in both). There was an increase in prevalence in each of the pelvic floor disorder symptoms with age. Conclusions Pelvic floor disorders are prevalent and increase with age in women in nonmetropolitan communities at rates similar to women in metropolitan communities.