Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in‐hospital mortality with intermediate‐ compared to prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation, and separately with in‐hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID‐19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate‐ or prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (“anticoagulation cohort”, N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in‐hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy (“aspirin cohort”, N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient‐specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well‐balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death. Among propensity score‐matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate‐ compared to prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308–0.872]). Among propensity‐score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in‐hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336–0.812]). In this propensity score‐matched, observational study of COVID‐19, intermediate‐dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Higher income is associated with lower incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, there is limited research on the association between changes in income and incident CVD. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between change in household income and subsequent risk of CVD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort of 15 792 community-dwelling men and women, of mostly black or white race, from 4 centers in the United States (Jackson, Mississippi; Washington County, Maryland; suburbs of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Forsyth County, North Carolina), beginning in 1987. For our analysis, participants were followed up until December 31, 2016. EXPOSURES Participants were categorized based on whether their household income dropped by more than 50% (income drop), remained unchanged/changed less than 50% (income unchanged), or increased by more than 50% (income rise) over a mean (SD) period of approximately 6 (0.3) years between ARIC visit 1 (1987-1989) and visit 3 (1993-1995). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Our primary outcome was incidence of CVD after ARIC visit 3, including myocardial infarction (MI), fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure (HF), or stroke during a mean (SD) of 17 (7) years. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic variables, health behaviors, and CVD biomarkers. RESULTS Of the 8989 included participants (mean [SD] age at enrollment was 53 [6] years, 1820 participants were black [20%], and 3835 participants were men [43%]), 900 participants (10%) experienced an income drop, 6284 participants (70%) had incomes that remained relatively unchanged, and 1805 participants (20%) experienced an income rise. After full adjustment, those with an income drop experienced significantly higher risk of incident CVD compared with those whose incomes remained relatively unchanged (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.32). Those with an income rise experienced significantly lower risk of incident CVD compared with those whose incomes remained relatively unchanged (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Income drop over 6 years was associated with higher risk of subsequent incident CVD over 17 years, while income rise over 6 years was associated with lower risk of subsequent incident CVD over 17 years. Health professionals should have greater awareness of the influence of income change on the health of their patients.

Background Heart failure (HF) poses a major public health burden in the United States. We examined the burden of out‐of‐pocket healthcare costs on patients with HF and their families. Methods and Results In the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), we identified all families with ≥1 adult member with HF during 2014 – 2018. Total out‐of‐pocket healthcare expenditures included yearly care‐specific costs and insurance premiums. We evaluated two outcomes of financial toxicity: (1) high financial burden – total out‐of‐pocket healthcare expense to post‐subsistence income of >20%, and (2) catastrophic financial burden with the rate of >40% ‐ a bankrupting expense defined by the WHO. There were 788 families in MEPS with a member with HF representing 0.54% (95% CI, 0.48%–0.60%) of all families nationally. The overall mean annual out‐of‐pocket healthcare expenses were $4423 (95% CI, $3908–$4939), with medications and health insurance premiums representing the largest categories of cost. Overall, 14% (95% CI, 11%‐18%) of families experienced a high burden and 5% (95% CI, 3%‐6%) experienced a catastrophic burden. Among the two‐fifths of families considered low‐income, 24% (95% CI, 18%‐30%) experienced a high financial burden, while 10% (95% CI, 6%‐14%) experienced a catastrophic burden. Low‐income families had 4‐fold greater risk‐adjusted odds of high (OR=3.9, 95% CI, 2.3–6.6), and 14‐fold greater risk‐adjusted odds of catastrophic financial burden (OR=14.2, 95% CI, 5.1–39.5) compared with middle/high income families. Conclusions Patients with HF and their families experience large out‐of‐pocket healthcare expenses. A large proportion encounter financial toxicity, with a disproportionate effect on low‐income families.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: The prognostic value of physical examination, its relation to quality of life (QoL), and influence of therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well known. Methods and Results: We studied participants from the Americas with available physical examination (jugular venous distention, rales, and edema) at baseline in TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist). The association of the number of signs of congestion with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality was assessed using timeupdated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. We evaluated whether spironolactone improved congestion at 4-months, and whether improvement in congestion was related to QoL as assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary scores (KCCQ-OSS), and to outcomes. Among 1644 participants, 22%, 54%, 20%, and 4% had 0, 1, 2, and 3 signs of congestion, respectively, at baseline. After multivariable adjustment, each additional increase in sign of congestion was associated with a 30-60% increased risk of each outcome (p<0.001). Spironolactone reduced the total number of signs of congestion by −0.10 (p=0.005) signs, jugular venous distention (odds ratio 0.60, p=0.01) and edema (odds ratio 0.74, p=0.006) at 4-months compared to placebo. Each reduction in sign of congestion was independently associated with a 4.0 (95%CI: 2.4, 5.6) point improvement in KCCQ-OSS. When assessed simultaneously, timeupdated, but not baseline, congestion predicted outcomes. Conclusions: In HFpEF, the physical exam provides independent prognostic value for adverse outcomes. Spironolactone improved congestion compared with placebo. Reducing congestion was independently associated with improved QoL and outcomes and is a modifiable risk factor.

Purpose: To determine the impact of the Beyond the Books (BTB) program, a short-term pre-clinical intervention, on medical student attitudes toward the underserved (MSATU).Methods: BTB was evaluated through a prospective cohort study using the validated MSATU questionnaire.Results: There were no significant MSATU total score differences between BTB students (n=13) and student controls (n=29) at the beginning of the program. At the program's conclusion, BTB participant MSATU total scores were significantly higher than those of controls (p<0.001).Conclusion: Although limited by selection methods, our MSATU data support the capability of short-term pre-clinical interventions to significantly improve medical student attitudes toward underserved communities.