Paul Merage School of Business

An essay intended to foster reflection on the impact of escalating changes in journal publication practices on our PhD students and junior colleagues. We provide observations, journal data, and conclude with ideas about how this problem can be addressed.

BACKGROUND: Reducing hospital readmission offer potential benefits for patients, providers, payers, and policymakers to improve quality of healthcare, reduce cost, and improve patient experience. We investigated effectiveness of remdesivir in reducing 30-day coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related readmission during the Omicron era, including older adults and those with underlying immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized the US PINC AI Healthcare Database to identify adult patients discharged alive from an index COVID-19 hospitalization between December 2021 and February 2024. Odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission to the same hospital were compared between patients who received remdesivir vs those who did not, after balancing characteristics of the two groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement during index hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 326 033 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during study period, 210 586 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 109 551 (52%) patients were treated with remdesivir. After IPTW, lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission were observed in patients who received remdesivir vs those who did not, in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.2%, respectively; odds ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 0.78 [.75-.80]), elderly population (3.7% vs 4.7%, respectively; 0.78 [.75-.81]), and those with underlying immunocompromising conditions (5.3% vs 6.2%, respectively; 0.86 [.80-.92]). These results were consistent irrespective of supplemental oxygen requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission across all patients discharged alive from the initial COVID-19 hospitalization, including older adults and those with underlying immunocompromising conditions.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a major public health concern, with continued resurgences of cases and substantial risk of mortality for hospitalized patients. Remdesivir has become standard-of-care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Given the continued evolution of the disease, clinical management of COVID-19 relies on evidence from the current endemic period. METHODS: Using the PINC AI Healthcare Database, remdesivir effectiveness was evaluated among adults hospitalized with primary diagnosis of COVID-19 between December 2021 and February 2024. Three cohorts were analyzed: adults (≥18 years), elderly (≥65 years), and those with documented COVID-19 pneumonia. Analyses were stratified by oxygen requirements. Patients who received remdesivir were matched to those who did not receive remdesivir using propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 169 965 adults hospitalized for COVID-19 were included, of whom 94 129 (55.4%) initiated remdesivir in the first 2 days of hospitalization. Remdesivir was associated with significantly lower mortality rate compared to no remdesivir among patients with no supplemental oxygen charges (adjusted HR [95% CI]: 14-day, 0.75 [.69-.82]; 28-day, 0.77 [.72-.83]) and those requiring supplemental oxygen: 14-day, 0.76 [.72-.81]; 28-day, 0.79 [.74-.83]; P < .0001 for all). Similar findings were observed for elderly patients and those hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence builds on what has been learned from randomized controlled trials from the pandemic era to inform clinical practices. Remdesivir was associated with significant reduction in mortality for hospitalized patients including the elderly and those with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immunocompromising conditions are at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and deaths. Randomized clinical trials provide limited enrollment, if any, to provide information on the outcomes in such patients treated with remdesivir. METHODS: Using the US PINC AI Healthcare Database, we identified adult patients with immunocompromising conditions, hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2021 and February 2024. The primary outcome was all-cause inpatient mortality examined in propensity score-matched patients in remdesivir vs nonremdesivir groups. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with cancer, hematological malignancies, and solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. RESULTS: Of 28 966 patients included in the study, 16 730 (58%) received remdesivir during the first 2 days of hospitalization. After propensity score matching, 8822 patients in the remdesivir and 8822 patients in the nonremdesivir group were analyzed. Remdesivir was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate among patients with no supplemental oxygen (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.73 [.62-.86] at 14 days and 0.79 [.68-.91] at 28 days) and among those with supplemental oxygen (0.75 [.67-.85] and 0.78 [.70-.86], respectively). Remdesivir was also associated with lower mortality rates in subgroups of patients with cancer, hematological malignancies (leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma), and solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplants. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-19, remdesivir was associated with significant improvement in survival, including patients with varied underlying immunocompromising conditions. The integration of current real-world evidence into clinical guideline recommendations can inform clinical communities to optimize treatment decisions in the evolving COVID-19 era, extending beyond the conclusion of the public health emergency declaration.

Abstract: Inspired by the goal of making marketplaces more inclusive, this research provides a deeper understanding of consumer vulnerability dynamics to develop strategies that help reduce these vulnerabilities. The proposed framework, first, conceptualizes vulnerability states as a function of the breadth and depth of consumers’ vulnerability; then, it sketches a set of vulnerability indicators that illustrate vulnerability breadth and depth. Second, because the breadth and depth of vulnerability vary over time, the framework goes beyond vulnerability states to identify distinct vulnerability-increasing and vulnerability-decreasing pathways, which describe how consumers move between vulnerability states. In a final step, the framework proposes that organizations can (and should) support consumers to mitigate vulnerability by helping consumers build resilience (e.g., via distinct types of resilience-fueling consumer agency). This framework offers novel conceptual insights into consumer vulnerability dynamics as well as resilience and provides avenues for future research on how organizations can better partner with consumers who experience vulnerabilities.

BACKGROUND: Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1, which randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. METHODS: Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 patients with COVID-19 were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/mL vs 1.04 (95% CI, .76-1.42) for levels <245 pg/mL. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04280705 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines were developed early in the pandemic when much about COVID-19 was unknown. Given the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, real-world data can provide clinicians with updated information. The objective of this analysis was to assess mortality risk in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the Omicron period receiving remdesivir+dexamethasone versus dexamethasone alone. METHODS: A large, multicenter US hospital database was used to identify hospitalized adult patients, with a primary discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 also flagged as present on admission treated with remdesivir+dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone from December 2021 to April 2023. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching and stratified by baseline oxygen requirements. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess time to 14- and 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 33 037 patients were matched, with most patients ≥65 years old (72%), White (78%), and non-Hispanic (84%). Remdesivir+dexamethasone was associated with lower mortality risk versus dexamethasone alone across all baseline oxygen requirements at 14 days (no supplemental oxygen charges: adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.72-0.87], low flow oxygen: 0.70 [0.64-0.77], high flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation: 0.69 [0.62-0.76], invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygen (IMV/ECMO): 0.78 [0.64-0.94]), with similar results at 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir+dexamethasone was associated with a significant reduction in 14- and 28-day mortality compared to dexamethasone alone in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all levels of baseline respiratory support, including IMV/ECMO. However, the use of remdesivir+dexamethasone still has low clinical practice uptake. In addition, these data suggest a need to update the existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), lower discharge heart rate (HR) is known to be associated with better outcomes. However, the effect of HR control on patient outcomes, and the demographic and clinical determinants of this association, are not well documented. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the association between the HR control and the risk of post-discharge rehospitalization in patients hospitalized with HFrEF. METHODS: Data were collected using a retrospective medical record review in the USA. Reduction in HR between admission and discharge (HR control) defined the primary exposure, categorized as no reduction, > 0 to < 20% reduction, and ≥ 20% reduction. Time to first rehospitalization in the post-discharge follow-up defined the study outcome and was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1002 patients were analyzed (median age, 63 years; median follow-up duration, 24.2 months). At admission, 59.1% received beta-blockers, 57.4% received diuretics, and 47.5% received angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Most patients (90.5%) achieved some HR control (38.4% achieved > 0 to < 20% reduction, and 52% achieved ≥ 20% reduction). Approximately 39% were rehospitalized during the follow-up (14% within 30 days). In multivariable analysis, patients with > 0 to < 20% reduction in HR had a 39% lower risk of rehospitalization [hazard ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.85]; patients with ≥ 20% reduction in HR had a 38% lower rehospitalization risk (hazard ratio 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.87) than those with no HR reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in HR between admission and discharge was associated with reduced risk for rehospitalization. Findings indicate HR control as an important goal in the management of patients hospitalized for HFrEF.

We develop and test a more comprehensive theory of the sources and effects of workplace favoritism by drawing on a large, agency-wide sample of U.S. Federal Aviation Administration employees. We report how members of various underrepresented groups differ in their perceptions of a variety of sources of favoritism. We find that their perceptions of friendship favoritism are an important source of perception of workplace favoritism for all employees. We show that perceptions of favoritism are negatively associated with employee trust in their organizations and coworkers, commitment to their organizations, willingness to speak up, and pay satisfaction, with friendship favoritism significantly dominating over most other sources. Further, we find that team leaders, supervisors, managers, and executives, with their greater knowledge of organizational processes, report less favoritism. This and previous research provide practical guidance on how greater transparency may reduce employee perceptions of favoritism in the federal workforce while avoiding discredited formalistic constraints.