Unmanaged Pharmacogenomic and Drug Interaction Risk Associations with Hospital Length of Stay among Medicare Advantage Members with COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

  1. Kristine Ashcraft
  2. Chad Moretz
  3. Chantelle Schenning
  4. Susan Rojahn
  5. Kae Vines Tanudtanud
  6. Gwyn Omar Magoncia
  7. Justine Reyes
  8. Bernardo Marquez
  9. Yinglong Guo
  10. Elif Tokar Erdemir
  11. Taryn O. Hall

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Unmanaged pharmacogenomic and drug interaction risk can lengthen hospitalization and may have influenced the severe health outcomes seen in some COVID-19 patients. To determine if unmanaged pharmacogenomic and drug interaction risks were associated with longer lengths of stay (LOS) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, we retrospectively reviewed medical and pharmacy claims from 6025 Medicare Advantage members hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients with a moderate or high pharmacogenetic interaction probability (PIP), which indicates the likelihood that testing would identify one or more clinically actionable gene–drug or gene–drug–drug interactions, were hospitalized for 9% (CI: 4–15%; p < 0.001) and 16% longer (CI: 8–24%; p < 0.001), respectively, compared to those with low PIP. Risk adjustment factor (RAF) score, a commonly used measure of disease burden, was not associated with LOS. High PIP was significantly associated with 12–22% longer LOS compared to low PIP in patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A greater drug–drug interaction risk was associated with 10% longer LOS among patients with two or three chronic conditions. Thus, unmanaged pharmacogenomic risk was associated with longer LOS in these patients and managing this risk has the potential to reduce LOS in severely ill patients, especially those with chronic conditions.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/jpm11111192
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.06.21256769: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The de-identified data used in this study were granted a waiver of authorization by the institutional review board of the UnitedHealth Group Office of Human Research Affairs.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.06.21256769v1 on medRxiv