Browsing by Author "Camargo, Carlos A."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Agricultural workers in meatpacking plants presenting to an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 infection are disproportionately Black and Hispanic
    (Wiley, 2021-09) House, Hans R.; Vakkalanka, J. Priyanka; Behrens, Nathan G.; Haan, Jessica De; Halbur, Christopher R.; Harrington, Elaine M.; Patel, Pooja H.; Rawwas, Lulua; Camargo, Carlos A.; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objective Facilities that process and package meat for consumer sale and consumption (meatpacking plants) were early sites of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks. The aim of this study was to characterize the association between meatpacking plant exposure and clinical outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19 symptoms. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a single ED, from March 1 to May 31, 2020, who had: 1) symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and 2) a COVID-19 test performed. The primary outcome was COVID-19 positivity, and secondary outcomes included hospital admission from the ED, ventilator use, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay (LOS; <48 or ≥48 h), and mortality. Results Patients from meatpacking plants were more likely to be Black or Hispanic than the ED patients without this occupational exposure. Patients with a meatpacking plant exposure were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.59 to 3.53) but had similar rates of hospital admission (aRR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.07) and hospital LOS (aRR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.23). There was no significant difference in ventilator use among patients with meatpacking and nonmeatpacking plant exposure (8.2% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.531), ICU admissions (4.1% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.094), and mortality (2.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.473). Conclusions Workers in meatpacking plants in Iowa had a higher rate of testing positive for COVID-19 but were not more likely to be hospitalized for their illness. These patients were disproportionately Black and Hispanic.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021
    (PloS, 2021-03) Kline, Jeffrey A.; Camargo, Carlos A.; Courtney, D. Mark; Kabrhel, Christopher; Nordenholz, Kristen E.; Aufderheide, Thomas; Baugh, Joshua J.; Beiser, David G.; Bennett, Christopher L.; Bledsoe, Joseph; Castillo, Edward; Chisolm-Straker, Makini; Goldberg, Elizabeth M.; House, Hans; House, Stacey; Jang, Timothy; Lim, Stephen C.; Madsen, Troy E.; McCarthy, Danielle M.; Meltzer, Andrew; Moore, Stephen; Newgard, Craig; Pagenhardt, Justine; Pettit, Katherine L.; Pulia, Michael S.; Puskarich, Michael A.; Southerland, Lauren T.; Sparks, Scott; Turner-Lawrence, Danielle; Vrablik, Marie; Wang, Alfred; Weekes, Anthony J.; Westafer, Lauren; Wilburn, John; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objectives Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care. Methods Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables. Results Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79–0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8–96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0–21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19–0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points). Conclusion Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2
    (Wiley, 2020-11-12) Kline, Jeffrey A.; Pettit, Katherine L.; Kabrhel, Christopher; Courtney, D. Mark; Nordenholz, Kristen E.; Camargo, Carlos A.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    This paper summarizes the methodology for the registry of suspected COVID‐19 in emergency care (RECOVER), a large clinical registry of patients from 155 United States (US) emergency departments (EDs) in 27 states tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 from March–September 2020. The initial goals are to derive and test: (1) a pretest probability instrument for prediction of SARS‐CoV‐2 test results, and from this instrument, a set of simple criteria to exclude COVID‐19 (the COVID‐19 Rule‐Out Criteria—the CORC rule), and (2) a prognostic instrument for those with COVID‐19. Patient eligibility included any ED patient tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 with a nasal or oropharyngeal swab. Abstracted clinical data included 204 variables representing the earliest manifestation of infection, including week of testing, demographics, symptoms, exposure risk, past medical history, test results, admission status, and outcomes 30 days later. In addition to the primary goals, the registry will provide a vital platform for characterizing the course, epidemiology, clinical features, and prognosis of patients tested for COVID‐19 in the ED setting.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Near-universal hospitalization of US emergency department patients with cancer and febrile neutropenia
    (PLOS, 2019-05-23) Baugh, Christopher W.; Faridi, Mohammad Kamal; Mueller, Emily L.; Camargo, Carlos A.; Pallin, Daniel J.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    IMPORTANCE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common oncologic emergency and is among the most deadly. Guidelines recommend risk stratification and outpatient management of both pediatric and adult FN patients deemed to be at low risk of complications or mortality, but our prior single-center research demonstrated that the vast majority (95%) are hospitalized. OBJECTIVE: From a nationwide perspective, to determine the proportion of cancer patients of all ages hospitalized after an emergency department (ED) visit for FN, and to analyze variability in hospitalization rates. Our a priori hypothesis was that >90% of US cancer-associated ED FN visits would end in hospitalization. DESIGN: Analysis of data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, 2006-2014. SETTING: Stratified probability sample of all US ED visits. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were: (1) Clinical Classification Software code indicating cancer, (2) diagnostic code indicating fever, and (3) diagnostic code indicating neutropenia. We excluded visits ending in transfer. EXPOSURE: The hospital at which the visit took place. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our main outcome is the proportion of ED FN visits ending in hospitalization, with an a priori hypothesis of >90%. Our secondary outcomes are: (a) hospitalization rates among subsets, and (b) proportion of variability in the hospitalization rate attributable to which hospital the patient visited, as measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Of 348,868 visits selected to be representative of all US ED visits, 94% ended in hospitalization (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 93-94%). Each additional decade of age conferred 1.23x increased odds of hospitalization. Those with private (92%), self-pay (92%), and other (93%) insurance were less likely to be hospitalized than those with public insurance (95%, odds ratios [OR] 0.74-0.76). Hospitalization was least likely at non-metropolitan hospitals (84%, OR 0.15 relative to metropolitan teaching hospitals), and was also less likely at metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (94%, OR 0.64 relative to metropolitan teaching hospitals). The ICC adjusted for hospital random effects and patient and hospital characteristics was 26% (95%CI 23-29%), indicating that 26% of the variability in hospitalization rate was attributable to which hospital the patient visited. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nearly all cancer-associated ED FN visits in the US end in hospitalization. Inter-hospital variation in hospitalization practices explains 26% of the limited variability in hospitalization decisions. Simple, objective tools are needed to improve risk stratification for ED FN patients.