Background Kidney graft recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy may be at heightened risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and adverse outcomes. It is therefore important to characterize the clinical course and outcome of Covid-19 in this population and identify safe therapeutic strategies. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of 73 adult kidney graft recipients evaluated for Covid-19 from 13 March to 20 April 2020. Primary outcomes included recovery from symptoms, acute kidney injury, graft failure and case fatality rate. Results Of the 73 patients screened, 54 tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)—39 with moderate to severe symptoms requiring hospital admission and 15 with mild symptoms managed in the ambulatory setting. Hospitalized patients were more likely to be male, of Hispanic ethnicity and to have cardiovascular disease. In the hospitalized group, tacrolimus dosage was reduced in 46% of patients and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) therapy was stopped in 61% of patients. None of the ambulatory patients had tacrolimus reduction or discontinuation of MMF. Azithromycin or doxycycline was prescribed at a similar rate among hospitalized and ambulatory patients (38% versus 40%). Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed in 79% of hospitalized patients. Graft failure requiring hemodialysis occurred in 3 of 39 hospitalized patients (8%) and 7 patients died, resulting in a case fatality rate of 13% among Covid-19-positive patients and 18% among hospitalized Covid-19-positive patients. Conclusions Data from our study suggest that a strategy of systematic triage to outpatient or inpatient care, early management of concurrent bacterial infections and judicious adjustment of immunosuppressive drugs rather than cessation is feasible in kidney transplant recipients with Covid-19.

Background: During the height of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there was an unprecedented demand for "virtual visits," or ambulatory visits conducted via video interface, in order to decrease the risk of transmission. Objective: To describe the implementation and evaluation of a video visit program at a large, academic primary care practice in New York, NY, the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and participants: We included consecutive adults (age > 18) scheduled for video visits from March 16, 2020 to April 17, 2020 for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related complaints. Intervention: New processes were established to prepare the practice and patients for video visits. Video visits were conducted by attendings, residents, and nurse practitioners. Main measures: Guided by the RE-AIM Framework, we evaluated the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, and Implementation of video visits. Key results: In the 4 weeks prior to the study period, 12 video visits were completed. During the 5-weeks study period, we completed a total of 1,030 video visits for 817 unique patients. Of the video visits completed, 42% were for COVID-19 related symptoms, and the remainder were for other acute or chronic conditions. Video visits were completed more often among younger adults, women, and those with commercial insurance, compared to those who completed in-person visits pre-COVID (all p < 0.0001). Patients who completed video visits reported high satisfaction (mean 4.6 on a 5-point scale [SD: 0.97]); 13.3% reported technical challenges during video visits. Conclusions: Video visits are feasible for the delivery of primary care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Characteristics of the patients were stratified by hospitalization status and disease severity. Clinical course including alterations in immunosuppressive therapy were retrieved from their electronic medical records.Primary outcomes included recovery from Covid-19 symptoms, acute kidney injury, graft failure, and case fatality rate. Results:Of the 54 SARS-Cov-2 positive kidney transplant recipients, 39 with moderate to severe symptoms were admitted and 15 with mild symptoms were managed at home.Hospitalized patients compared to non-hospitalized patients were more likely to be male, of Hispanic ethnicity, and to have cardiovascular disease. At baseline, all but 2 were receiving tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and 32 were on a steroid free immunosuppression regimen. Tacrolimus dosage was reduced in 46% of hospitalized patients and maintained at baseline level in the non-hospitalized cohort. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dosage was maintained at the baseline dosage in 11% of hospitalized patients and 64% of non-hospitalized patients and was stopped in 61% hospitalized patients and 0% in the non-hospitalized cohort.Azithromycin or doxycycline were prescribed at a similar rate among hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients (38% vs. 40%). In addition, 50% of hospitalized patients were treated for concurrent bacterial infections including pneumonia, urinary tract infections and sepsis.Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed in 79% of hospitalized patients and only one of 15 nonhospitalized patients. Acute kidney injury occurred in 51% of hospitalized patients. Patients with severe disease were more likely to have elevations in inflammatory biomarkers at presentation. At a median of 21 days follow up, 67% of patients have had their symptoms All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

We sought to determine whether hospitalizations affect where patients seek ambulatory care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 569 adults who were attributed by a commercial payer to a large physician organization (PO) and hospitalized in 2015. Approximately half of the patients (55%) were admitted to the hospital affiliated with the PO; the rest were hospitalized elsewhere. Patients hospitalized elsewhere were significantly less likely to be seen by a PO provider in the 6 months posthospitalization than those hospitalized at the affiliated hospital (adjusted odds ratio = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.48). These results have important implications for population management.