ObjectiveTo describe outcomes of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States, and the clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with severity of illness.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingSingle academic medical center in New York City and Long Island.Participants5279 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection between 1 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. The final date of follow up was 5 May 2020.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were admission to hospital, critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice care, or death), and discharge to hospice care or death. Predictors included patient characteristics, medical history, vital signs, and laboratory results. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and competing risk survival analysis for mortality.ResultsOf 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged. The strongest risk for hospital admission was associated with age, with an odds ratio of >2 for all age groups older than 44 years and 37.9 (95% confidence interval 26.1 to 56.0) for ages 75 years and older. Other risks were heart failure (4.4, 2.6 to 8.0), male sex (2.8, 2.4 to 3.2), chronic kidney disease (2.6, 1.9 to 3.6), and any increase in body mass index (BMI) (eg, for BMI >40: 2.5, 1.8 to 3.4). The strongest risks for critical illness besides age were associated with heart failure (1.9, 1.4 to 2.5), BMI >40 (1.5, 1.0 to 2.2), and male sex (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8). Admission oxygen saturation of <88% (3.7, 2.8 to 4.8), troponin level >1 (4.8, 2.1 to 10.9), C reactive protein level >200 (5.1, 2.8 to 9.2), and D-dimer level >2500 (3.9, 2.6 to 6.0) were, however, more strongly associated with critical illness than age or comorbidities. Risk of critical illness decreased significantly over the study period. Similar associations were found for mortality alone.ConclusionsAge and comorbidities were found to be strong predictors of hospital admission and to a lesser extent of critical illness and mortality in people with covid-19; however, impairment of oxygen on admission and markers of inflammation were most strongly associated with critical illness and mortality. Outcomes seem to be improving over time, potentially suggesting improvements in care.

Background:Little is known about factors associated with hospitalization and critical illness in Covid-19 positive patients. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 treated at an academic health system in New York City between March 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, with follow up through April 7, 2020. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, hospice and/or death). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and maximum information gain decision tree classifications to identify key splitters. Results: Among 4,103 Covid-19 patients, 1,999 (48.7%) were hospitalized, of whom 981/1,999 (49.1%) have been discharged, and 292/1,999 (14.6%) have died or been discharged to hospice. Of 445 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 162/445 (36.4%) have died. Strongest hospitalization risks were age ≥ 75 years (OR 66.8, 95% CI, 44.7-102.6), age 65-74 (OR 10.9, 95% CI, 8.35-14.34), BMI>40 (OR 6.2, 95% CI, 4.2-9.3), and heart failure (OR 4.3 95% CI, 1.9-11.2). Strongest critical illness risks were admission oxygen saturation <88% (OR 6.99, 95% CI 4.5-11.0), d-dimer>2500 (OR 6.9, 95% CI, 3.2-15.2), ferritin >2500 (OR 6.9, 95% CI, 3.2-15.2), and C-reactive protein (CRP) >200 (OR 5.78, 95% CI,). In the decision tree for admission, the most important features were age >65 and obesity; for critical illness, the most important was SpO2<88, followed by procalcitonin >0.5, troponin <0.1 (protective), age >64 and CRP>200.Conclusions: Age and comorbidities are powerful predictors of hospitalization; however, admission oxygen impairment and markers of inflammation are most strongly associated with critical illness.

Although sleep is vital to all human functioning and poor sleep is a known problem in cancer, it is unclear whether the overall prevalence of the various types of sleep disorders in cancer is known. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to evaluate if the prevalence of sleep disorders could be ascertained from the current body of literature regarding sleep in cancer. This was a critical and systematic review of peer-reviewed, English-language, original articles published from 1980 through 15 October 2013, identified using electronic search engines, a set of key words, and prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Information from 254 full-text, English-language articles was abstracted onto a paper checklist by one reviewer, with a second reviewer randomly verifying 50% (k = 99%). All abstracted data were entered into an electronic database, verified for accuracy, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and frequencies in SPSS (v.20) (North Castle, NY). Studies of sleep and cancer focus on specific types of symptoms of poor sleep, and there are no published prevalence studies that focus on underlying sleep disorders. Challenging the current paradigm of the way sleep is studied in cancer could produce better clinical screening tools for use in oncology clinics leading to better triaging of patients with sleep complaints to sleep specialists, and overall improvement in sleep quality.

Drive for thinness is a cardinal feature of bulimia nervosa. However, the widely used Drive for Thinness (DFT) subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory (Garner, 2004; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983) appears to measure a desire to be thinner, not a desire to be objectively thin. We developed the Drive for Objective Thinness (DFOT) Scale and compared unrestrained and restrained eaters and those with bulimia nervosa on the DFT subscale, Goldfarb's Fear of Fat Scale (GFFS; Goldfarb, Dykens, & Gerrard, 1983), and the DFOT Scale. Restrained eaters had higher scores than unrestrained eaters on the DFT subscale and the GFFS, but both groups had low scores on the DFOT Scale. Only the group with bulimia nervosa showed elevated scores on the DFOT Scale. We conclude that restrained eaters diet mostly to avoid weight gain, that individuals with bulimia nervosa diet to achieve thinness and avoid fatness, and that the drive for objective thinness is a unique feature of bulimia nervosa.

Study findings suggest that population-based screening for sleep disorders in clinical practice should be a priority for BCS reporting chronic sleep problems.

Objective-There is a growing consensus that there is a need to test the real-world effectiveness of eating disorder therapies that show promise in efficacy research. The current paper provides a narrative account of an NIMH-funded study that attempted to apply efficacy findings from CBT research to an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) at the largest community-based eating disorder program in the United States.Method-We describe the study as originally envisioned as well as the various challenges that the researchers and the IOP staff encountered in implementing this study.Results-The different training, assumptions, and "ways of knowing" of the research team and the treatment staff in regard to the nature of eating disorders and their treatment created multiple challenges for both groups during the study period. We describe valuable lessons learned about how to -and how not to -implement effectiveness designs in clinical settings that are relatively unfamiliar with empirically-based research findings.Discussion-It is hoped that our experience in attempting to apply efficacy-based research findings on eating disorders treatment in a community-based clinical setting will prove helpful to other researchers and service providers engaging in such translational research.The vast majority of controlled psychotherapy outcome studies for eating disorders have used efficacy designs, leaving open the question of the real-world applicability of their findings. Efficacy studies have found cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) to be the treatment of choice for bulimia nervosa (BN). It may hold promise for anorexia nervosa (AN) as well1 , 2 , 3. The present paper describes our attempt to translate CBT findings from efficacy studies on bulimia nervosa to a community-based intensive outpatient program. This study was supported by a NIMH R34 grant that was designed to promote such translational studies. The reason that we wrote this narrative account is that the attempt to apply findings from well-controlled efficacy studies to a clinical setting using an effectiveness design creates a number of novel challenges that must be identified and overcome to facilitate this kind of translational research in the future.Two goals of the R34 grant that funded this research were to "encourage research on 1) the development and/or pilot testing of new or adapted interventions, [and] 2) pilot testing interventions with demonstrated efficacy in broader scale effectiveness trials…"4. This

No abstract

No abstract