PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Kevin E. Kip
AU  - Graham Snyder
AU  - Donald M. Yealy
AU  - John W. Mellors
AU  - Tami Minnier
AU  - Michael P. Donahoe
AU  - Jeffrey McKibben
AU  - Kevin Collins
AU  - Oscar C. Marroquin
TI  - Temporal Changes in Clinical Practice with COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: Potential Explanations for Better In-Hospital Outcomes
AID  - 10.1101/2020.09.29.20203802
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.09.29.20203802
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/29/2020.09.29.20203802.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/29/2020.09.29.20203802.full
AB  - Background/Aims We reviewed demographic and clinical profiles, along with measures of hospital-based clinical practice to identify temporal changes in clinical practice that may have affected in-hospital outcomes of patients with COVID-19.Methods Data consisted of sociodemographic and clinical data captured in University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) electronic medical record (EMR) systems, linked by common variables (deidentified). The analysis population included hospitalized patients (across 21 hospitals) with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection during the period March 14-August 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mechanical ventilation/mortality. We compared temporal trends in patient characteristics, clinical practice, and hospital outcomes using 4 time-defined epochs for calendar year 2020: March 14-March 31 (epoch 1); April 1-May 15, (epoch 2), May 16-June 28 (epoch 3); and June 29-August 31 (epoch 4). We report unadjusted survival estimates, followed by propensity score analyses to adjust for differences in patient characteristics, to compare in-hospital outcomes of epoch 4 patients (recently treated) to epoch 1-3 patients (earlier treated).Results Mean number of hospital admissions was 9.9 per day during epoch 4, which was ∼2-to 3-fold higher than the earlier epochs. Presenting characteristics of the 1,076 COVID-19 hospitalized patients were similar across the 4 epochs, including mean age. The crude rate of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (17%) than in epoch 1-3 patients (23% to 35%). When censoring for incomplete patient follow-up, the rate of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (p<0.0001), as was the individual component of mechanical ventilation (p=0.0002) and mortality (p=0.02). In propensity score adjusted analyses, the in-hospital relative risk (RR) of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.93). For the outcome being discharged alive within 3, 5, or 7 days of admission, adjusted odds ranged from 1.6-to 1.7-fold higher among epoch 4 patients compared to earlier treated patients. The better outcomes in epoch 4 patients were principally observed in patients under the age of 75 years. Patient level dexamethasone use was 55.6% in epoch 4 compared to 15% or less of patients in the earlier epochs. Most patients across epochs received anticoagulation drugs (principally heparin). Overall steroid (81.7% vs. 54.3%, p<0.0001) and anticoagulation use (90.4% vs. 80.7%, p=0.0001) was more frequent on the day or day after hospitalization in epoch 4 patients compared to earlier treated patients.Conclusions In our large system, recently treated hospitalized COVID-19 patients had lower rates of in-hospital mechanical ventilation/mortality and shorter length of hospital stay. Alongside of this was a change to early initiation of glucocorticoid therapy and anticoagulation. The extent to which the improvement in patient outcomes was related to changes in clinical practice remains to be established.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialProject was not registered as it was a retrospective Quality Improvement project approved by the UPMC Quality Improvement Review CommitteeFunding StatementNone.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received formal ethics approval by the UPMC Ethics and Quality Improvement Review Committee (Project ID 2882), the ethics/oversight body for ensuring patient confidentiality and consent (including waiver of consent) for analysis and dissemination of deidentified data within the UPMC system.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data used in this analysis are not available to outside investigators.