Importance

Active SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) transmission continues in the US. It is unclear whether better access to coronavirus testing and more consistent use of testing could substantially reduce transmission.

Objective

To describe coronavirus testing in persons with new onset of febrile illness and analyze whether there are changes over time and differences by race and ethnicity.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study used data from the COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, launched in March 2020, which recruited participants via press release, word-of-mouth, and partner organizations. Participants completed daily surveys about COVID-19 symptoms and weekly surveys about coronavirus testing. All adults (aged at least 18 years) with a smartphone were eligible to join. For this analysis, US participants with new onset of febrile illness from April 2020 to October 2020 were included. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to March 2021.

Main outcomes and measures

Receipt of a coronavirus test result within 7 days of febrile illness onset.

Results

Of the 2679 participants included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 46.3 (13.4) years, 1983 were female (74%), 2017 were college educated (75%), and a total of 3865 distinct new febrile illness episodes were reported (300 episodes [7.8%] from Hispanic participants, 71 episodes [1.8%] from Black participants, and 3494 episodes [90.4%] from not Black, not Hispanic participants) between April 2 and October 23, 2020. In weekly surveys delivered during the 14 days after fever onset, 12% overall (753 participants) indicated receipt of a test result. Using serial survey responses and parametric time-to-event modeling, it was estimated that by 7 days after onset of febrile illness, a total of 20.5% (95% CI, 19.1%-22.0%) had received a test result. This proportion increased from 9.8% (95% CI, 7.5%-12.0%) early in the epidemic to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.5%-26.7%) at the end of July, but testing rates did not substantially improve since then, increasing to 25.9% (95% CI; 21.6%-30.3%) in late October at the start of the winter surge. Black participants reported receiving a test result about half as often as others (7% [7 of 103] of survey responses vs 12% [53 of 461] for Hispanic vs 13% [693 of 5516] for not Black, not Hispanic; P = .03). This association was not statistically significant in adjusted time-to-event models (hazard ratio = 0.59 vs not Black, not Hispanic participants; 95% CI, 0.26-1.34).

Conclusions and relevance

Systematic underuse of coronavirus testing was observed in this cohort study through late October 2020, at the beginning of the winter COVID-19 surge, which may have contributed to preventable coronavirus transmission.

People may be more likely to exercise if they have self-efficacy for exercise (SEE). We conducted an exploratory analysis of SEE using data from a clinical trial designed to increase physical activity (N = 340). We evaluated correlates of baseline SEE and the relationship between baseline SEE and physical activity. Low SEE at baseline was correlated with lower well-being, physical activity, and higher depression at baseline. Participants with high (vs. low) baseline SEE had higher physical activity (but no differential change in activity) over time. These data highlight the potential role of SEE in psychological health and physical activity.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Background

Little is known about whether people who use both tobacco and cannabis (co-use) are more or less likely to have mental health disorders than single substance users or non-users. We aimed to examine associations between use of tobacco and/or cannabis with anxiety and depression.

Methods

We analyzed data from the COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, a digital cohort study, collected via online surveys during 2020-2022 from a convenience sample of 53,843 US adults (≥ 18 years old) nationwide. Past 30-day use of tobacco and cannabis was self-reported at baseline and categorized into four exclusive patterns: tobacco-only use, cannabis-only use, co-use of both substances, and non-use. Anxiety and depression were repeatedly measured in monthly surveys. To account for multiple assessments of mental health outcomes within a participant, we used Generalized Estimating Equations to examine associations between the patterns of tobacco and cannabis use with each outcome.

Results

In the total sample (mean age 51.0 years old, 67.9% female), 4.9% reported tobacco-only use, 6.9% cannabis-only use, 1.6% co-use, and 86.6% non-use. Proportions of reporting anxiety and depression were highest for the co-use group (26.5% and 28.3%, respectively) and lowest for the non-use group (10.6% and 11.2%, respectively). Compared to non-use, the adjusted odds of mental health disorders were highest for co-use (Anxiety: OR = 1.89, 95%CI = 1.64-2.18; Depression: OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.46-2.16), followed by cannabis-only use, and tobacco-only use. Compared to tobacco-only use, co-use (OR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.08-1.69) and cannabis-only use (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 1.00-1.37) were associated with higher adjusted odds for anxiety, but not for depression. Daily use (vs. non-daily use) of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis were associated with higher adjusted odds for anxiety and depression.

Conclusions

Use of tobacco and/or cannabis, particularly co-use of both substances, were associated with poor mental health. Integrating mental health support with tobacco and cannabis cessation may address this co-morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) is a leading preventable cause of death that remains common in the US population despite the availability of effective medications. New technology and program innovation has high potential to improve BP but may be expensive and burdensome for patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers and may not produce desired results or reduce existing disparities in BP control. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is a platform designed to enable national surveillance and facilitate quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research. The platform uses PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, for engagement of health systems and collection of electronic health record data, and the Eureka Research Platform for eConsent and collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. Three demonstration projects are underway: BP track will conduct national surveillance of BP control and related clinical processes by measuring theory-derived pragmatic BP control metrics using electronic health record data, with a focus on tracking disparities over time; BP MAP will conduct a cluster-randomized trial comparing effectiveness of 2 versions of a BP control quality improvement program; BP Home will conduct an individual patient-level randomized trial comparing effectiveness of smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring. Thus far, BP Track has collected electronic health record data from over 826 000 eligible patients with hypertension who completed ≈3.1 million ambulatory visits. Preliminary results demonstrate substantial room for improvement in BP control (<140/90 mm Hg), which was 58% overall, and in the clinical processes relevant for BP control. For example, only 12% of patients with hypertension with a high BP measurement during an ambulatory visit received an order for a new antihypertensive medication. CONCLUSIONS: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is designed to be a reusable platform for efficient surveillance and comparative effectiveness research; results from demonstration projects are forthcoming.

Background

It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies.

Methods

In January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states.

Results

There was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies.

Conclusions

This study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.

COVID-19 increased the prevalence of clinically significant anxiety in the United States. To investigate contributing factors we analyzed anxiety, reported online via monthly Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7) surveys between April 2020 and May 2022, in association with self-reported worry about the health effects of COVID-19, economic difficulty, personal COVID-19 experience, and subjective social status. 333,292 anxiety surveys from 50,172 participants (82% non-Hispanic white; 73% female; median age 55, IQR 42-66) showed high levels of anxiety, especially early in the pandemic. Anxiety scores showed strong independent associations with worry about the health effects of COVID-19 for oneself or family members (GAD-7 score +3.28 for highest vs. lowest category; 95% confidence interval: 3.24, 3.33; p<0.0001 for trend) and with difficulty paying for basic living expenses (+2.06; 1.97, 2.15, p<0.0001) in multivariable regression models after adjusting for demographic characteristics, COVID-19 case rates and death rates, and personal COVID-19 experience. High levels of COVID-19 health worry and economic stress were each more common among participants reporting lower subjective social status, and median anxiety scores for those experiencing both were in the range considered indicative of moderate to severe clinical anxiety disorders. In summary, health worry and economic difficulty both contributed to high rates of anxiety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, especially in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Programs to address both health concerns and economic insecurity in vulnerable populations could help mitigate pandemic impacts on anxiety and mental health.

Background The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross-sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well-documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1-year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1 737 995 patients, and 11 956 509 patient-years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%-74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%-25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15 mm Hg; range, 5-18 mm Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps.

Importance

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. Although patients have reported that various exposures determine when and if an AF event will occur, a prospective evaluation of patient-selected triggers has not been conducted, and the utility of characterizing presumed AF-related triggers for individual patients remains unknown.

Objective

To test the hypothesis that n-of-1 trials of self-selected AF triggers would enhance AF-related quality of life.

Design, setting, and participants

A randomized clinical trial lasting a minimum of 10 weeks tested a smartphone mobile application used by symptomatic patients with paroxysmal AF who owned a smartphone and were interested in testing a presumed AF trigger. Participants were screened between December 22, 2018, and March 29, 2020.

Interventions

n-of-1 Participants received instructions to expose or avoid self-selected triggers in random 1-week blocks for 6 weeks, and the probability their trigger influenced AF risk was then communicated. Controls monitored their AF over the same time period.

Main outcomes and measures

AF was assessed daily by self-report and using a smartphone-based electrocardiogram recording device. The primary outcome comparing n-of-1 and control groups was the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) score at 10 weeks. All participants could subsequently opt for additional trigger testing.

Results

Of 446 participants who initiated (mean [SD] age, 58 [14] years; 289 men [58%]; 461 White [92%]), 320 (72%) completed all study activities. Self-selected triggers included caffeine (n = 53), alcohol (n = 43), reduced sleep (n = 31), exercise (n = 30), lying on left side (n = 17), dehydration (n = 10), large meals (n = 7), cold food or drink (n = 5), specific diets (n = 6), and other customized triggers (n = 4). No significant differences in AFEQT scores were observed between the n-of-1 vs AF monitoring-only groups. In the 4-week postintervention follow-up period, significantly fewer daily AF episodes were reported after trigger testing compared with controls over the same time period (adjusted relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43- 0.83; P < .001). In a meta-analysis of the individualized trials, only exposure to alcohol was associated with significantly heightened risks of AF events.

Conclusions and relevance

n-of-1 Testing of AF triggers did not improve AF-associated quality of life but was associated with a reduction in AF events. Acute exposure to alcohol increased AF risk, with no evidence that other exposures, including caffeine, more commonly triggered AF.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03323099.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. METHODS: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ± 0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ± 0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ± 2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ± 0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. CONCLUSION: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.