1. Home
  2. Prognosis

Prognosis

Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Anosmia 1 Year After COVID-19 Diagnosis

Author/s: 
Renaud, Marion, Thibault, Claire, Normand, F. L., Mcdonald, E. G., Gallix, B., Debry, C., Venkatasamy, A.

Since the pandemic was declared in early 2020, COVID-19–related anosmia quickly emerged as a telltale sign of infection.1,2 However, the time course and reversibility of COVID-19–related olfactory disorders, which may persist and negatively affect patients’ lives, require further study. To clarify the clinical course and prognosis, we followed a cohort of patients with COVID-19–related anosmia for 1 year and performed repeated olfactory function evaluations for a subset of patients.

Keywords 
COVID-19 Anosmia diagnosis Infection clinical outcomes

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care

Author/s: 
Stevans, Joel M., Delitto, Anthony, Khoja, Samannaaz, Patterson, Charity G., Smith, Clair N., Schneider, Michael J., Freburger, Janet K., Greco, Carol M., Freel, Jennifer A., Sowa, Gwendolyn A., Wasan, Ajay D., Brennan, Gerard P., Hunter, Stephen J., Minick, Kate I., Wegener, Stephen T., Ephraim, Patti L., Friedman, Michael", Jason M., Robert B.

Importance: Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP.

Objective: To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care.

Design, setting, and participants: This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020.

Exposures: SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral).

Main outcomes and measures: Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records.

Results: Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial

Keywords 
back pain primary care Low Back Pain opioids LBP SBT

Association of household secondhand smoke exposure and mortality risk in patients with heart failure

Author/s: 
He, X, Zhao, J, He, J, Dong, Y, Liu, C

BACKGROUND:

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is a well-established cardiovascular risk factor, yet association between SHS and prognosis of heart failure remains uncertain.

METHOD:

Data were obtained from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys III from 1988 to 1994. Currently nonsmoking adults with a self-reported history of heart failure were included. Household SHS exposure was assessed by questionnaire. Participants were followed up through December 31, 2011. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess the association of household SHS exposure and mortality risk. Potential confounding factors were adjusted.

RESULTS:

Of 572 currently nonsmoking patients with heart failure, 88 were exposed to household SHS while 484 were not. There were totally 475 deaths during follow-up. In univariate analysis, household SHS was not associated with mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, p = 0.864). However, after adjustment for demographic variables, socioeconomic variables and medication, heart failure patients in exposed group had a 43% increase of mortality risk compared with those in unexposed group (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.10-1.86, p = 0.007). Analysis with further adjustment for general health status and comorbidities yielded similar result (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.13-1.92, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION:

Household SHS exposure was associated with increased mortality risk in heart failure patients.

Keywords 
heart failure mortality secondhand smoke

Communication Strategies for Sharing Prognostic Information With Patients: Beyond Survival Statistics

Author/s: 
Paladino, J., Lakin, J.R., Sanders J.J.

Communicating prognosis, the anticipated course of living with an illness, is a core clinical skill and a foundation of the patient-clinician relationship. Clinicians find such communication challenging. Concerns about professional helplessness when caring for a patient with a disease with a poor prognosis and the desire to avoid difficult patient and personal emotions can lead to an understandable reluctance to share difficult news with patients and families. Clinicians also struggle to find the right words to balance hope with concern when sharing difficult news.1 While receiving prognostic information is difficult for patients, not receiving prognostic information can create anxiety and may distance patients from their clinicians, who are often aware of the prognosis but do not share it with patients. Delaying or avoiding communication about prognosis also risks patients not having the information they need to make decisions and leads to missed opportunities to set and achieve goals that reflect what matters most to them..

Subscribe to Prognosis