Citations

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P < .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

Introduction Clinical assessment in emergency departments (EDs) for possible acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires at least one cardiac troponin (cTn) blood test. The turn-around time from blood draw to posting results in the clinical portal for central laboratory analysers is ~1–2 hours. New generation, high-sensitivity, point-of-care cardiac troponin I (POC-cTnI) assays use whole blood on a bedside (or near bedside) analyser that provides a rapid (8 min) result. This may expedite clinical decision-making and reduce length of stay. Our purpose is to determine if utilisation of a POC-cTnI testing reduces ED length of stay. We also aim to establish an optimised implementation process for the amended clinical pathway. Methods and analysis This quality improvement initiative has a pragmatic multihospital stepped-wedge cross-sectional cluster randomised design. Consecutive patients presenting to the ED with symptoms suggestive of possible AMI and having a cTn test will be included. Clusters (comprising one or two hospitals each) will change from their usual-care pathway to an amended pathway using POC-cTnI—the ‘intervention’. The dates of change will be randomised. Changes occur at 1 month intervals, with a minimum 2 month ‘run-in’ period. The intervention pathway will use a POC-cTnI measurement as an alternate to the laboratory-based cTn measurement. Clinical decision-making steps and logic will otherwise remain unchanged. The POC-cTnI is the Siemens (Erlangen Germany) Atellica VTLi high-sensitivity cTnI assay. The primary outcome is ED length of stay. The safety outcome is cardiac death or AMI within 30 days for patients discharged directly from the ED. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been granted by the New Zealand Southern Health and Disability Ethics Committee, reference 21/STH/9. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Lay and academic presentations will be made. Māori-specific results will be disseminated to Māori stakeholders. Trial registration number ACTRN12619001189112.

Abstract Medical researchers are increasingly prioritizing the inclusion of underserved communities in clinical studies. However, mere inclusion is not enough. People from underserved communities frequently experience chronic stress that may lead to accelerated biological aging and early morbidity and mortality. It is our hope and intent that the medical community come together to engineer improved health outcomes for vulnerable populations. Here, we introduce Health Equity Engineering (HEE), a comprehensive scientific framework to guide research on the development of tools to identify individuals at risk of poor health outcomes due to chronic stress, the integration of these tools within existing healthcare system infrastructures, and a robust assessment of their effectiveness and sustainability. HEE is anchored in the premise that strategic intervention at the individual level, tailored to the needs of the most at-risk people, can pave the way for achieving equitable health standards at a broader population level. HEE provides a scientific framework guiding health equity research to equip the medical community with a robust set of tools to enhance health equity for current and future generations.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. RESULTS A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.