COVID-19 infections and outcomes in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Patients with comorbid conditions have a higher risk of mortality with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, but the impact on heart failure patients living near a disease hotspot is unknown. Therefore, we sought to characterize the prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19 in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system in Connecticut.
METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701) that includes 26,703 patients with heart failure across a 6-hospital integrated health care system in Connecticut was queried on April 16th, 2020 for all patients tested for COVID-19. Sociodemographic and geospatial data as well as, clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality were obtained via the real-time registry. Data on COVID-19 specific care was extracted by retrospective chart review.
RESULTS: COVID-19 testing was performed on 900 symptomatic patients, comprising 3.4% of the Yale Heart Failure Registry (N = 26,703). Overall, 206 (23%) were COVID- 19+. As compared to COVID-19-, these patients were more likely to be older, black, have hypertension, coronary artery disease, and were less likely to be on renin angiotensin blockers (P<0.05, all). COVID-19- patients tended to be more diffusely spread across the state whereas COVID-19+ were largely clustered around urban centers. 20% of COVID-19+ patients died, and age was associated with increased risk of death [OR 1.92 95% CI (1.33-2.78); P<0.001]. Among COVID-19+ patients who were ≥85 years of age rates of hospitalization were 87%, rates of death 36%, and continuing hospitalization 62% at time of manuscript preparation.
CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world snapshot of COVID-19 infection among a large cohort of heart failure patients, we found that a small proportion had undergone testing. Patients found to be COVID-19+ tended to be black with multiple comorbidities and clustered around lower socioeconomic status communities. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality.

Introduction

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a pandemic since its initial outbreak in December 2019 in Wuhan, China [1]. Risk factors for severe outcomes have been increasingly reported. Early reports from China indicated that patients with underlying cardiovascular disease had a 10.5% mortality rate compared with 2.3% case fatality rate in the general population [2]. Data from European and North American infection hotspots suggest that older age, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease are associated with higher odds of mortality [3, 4]. Therefore, it might be postulated that COVID-19 may be uniquely endangering to patients with heart failure, the most common cause of death and disability in the United States. However, very little is known about the prevalence of infection among heart failure patients in COVID-19 endemic regions and the risk factors associated with clinical deterioration.

The Yale New Haven Health System is one of the largest academic integrated health care systems in the U.S., its 6 hospitals (2,681 licensed beds) care for the majority of heart failure patients in Connecticut. We created a curated real-time registry within this system—the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701)—that currently includes 26,703 patients with a diagnosis of HF and contains detailed information about demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and imaging studies, medications, and clinical outcomes including hospital readmissions. The aim of this report is to describe the demographic characteristics, coexisting conditions, and early outcomes among this real- world registry of heart failure patients tested for COVID-19 in a hotspot.

Methods

Study cohort

We queried the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701) on April 16th, 2020 for patients who were tested for COVID-19. Briefly, the Yale Heart Failure Registry is a live registry of patients seen within the integrated Yale New Haven Health System (Fig 1) that meet the following evaluation logic: the patient has at least one encounter within the health system in the last 3 years and meets one of the four criteria (1) Problem List contains the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine–Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) concept heart failure, (2) Encounter Diagnosis contains SNOMED-CT concept heart failure for two or more face to face encounters within the last 12 months, (3) Encounter Diagnosis contains a SNOMED-CT concept heart failure for at least 1 admission within the last 12 months, (4) Coded Diagnosis is contained within one of the DRGs (291, 292, 293) for Heart Failure for at least 1 admission within the last 12 months. Of note, conditions in the Yale Electronic Health Record (EHR) use SNOMED-CT as the standard vocabulary for diagnosis codes. Registry exclusions are age<18, cardiac failure after obstetrical surgery or other procedure, or cardiac insufficiency during or resulting from a procedure. The registry has detailed information about demographics, comorbidities, laboratories, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), medications, geospatial mapping, and clinical outcomes (including hospital readmissions). Registry data is linked to the National Death Index, a centralized database of death record information on file in state vital statistics offices. The registry is updated daily and can be queried for clinically relevant questions aimed at research and quality improvement. The registry has undergone extensive quality control by independent cardiologists and pharmacists; it has been found to have near identical patient characteristics to published registry data on heart failure patients [5]. The institutional review board (IRB) at the Yale University School of Medicine approved the study and waived the requirement for informed consent.

Fig 1

Population distribution of patients in the Yale Heart Failure Registry*.

*Darker shading represents a greater density of patients in the registry from a zip code.

Standardization of COVID-19 treatment across the health system

Yale New Haven Health System has one single integrated electronic health record system across 6 hospitals. This single instance of Epic (Epic Corporation, Verona WI) has a common drug formulary, set of decision support tools, and order sets standardized across the System. Expert clinicians from different hospitals participated to create standardized COVID-19 order sets, documentation templates, and smart phrases for use in all hospitals. Physicians and other providers, however, can enter specific individual orders outside of COVID order sets as appropriate for individual patients but there is system wide guidance to standardize treatment (S1 and S2 Figs). In brief, admitted patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are initiated on treatment if they were either hypoxic or had evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement (either by symptoms and/or chest radiography). Hydroxychloroquine is utilized for its antiviral properties. For patients who required mechanical ventilation, ECMO or had a combination of hypoxia with a hyperinflammatory state, tocilizumab is used for its anti- inflammatory properties via IL-6 receptor inhibition.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as median and interquartile range (IQR) and categorical variables are expressed as number of patients (percentage). χ2 and Mann- Whitney rank sum tests was used to compare categorical variables. Predictors of testing COVID-19+ was done using stepwise logistic regression with selection by Akaike information criterion (AIC) and evaluated by a C-statistic and DeLong’s test (R version 3.5.3, MASS and pROC package). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between demographic variables and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2- tailed, and statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Analyses were performed using Stata version 16.1 (Statacorp).

Results

Based on data extracted from the Yale Heart Failure Registry on April 16th, 2020, we found that 900 patients, 3.4% of the total registry patients (N = 26,703) had been tested for SARS-COV-2. Per the Yale New Haven Health System protocol, testing was only performed on symptomatic patients. Of note, in the overall Yale Haven Health system, 22,254 patients had been tested and 6,357 (30.1%) were COVID-19+ as of April 16th2020. Most recent algorithms for treatment of COVID+ patients across the entire health care system are shown in S1 and S2 Figs. Patients in the registry, stratified by COVID-19 testing versus not and according to result, are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline clinical characteristics of patients according to testing status.

Characteristic	COVID-19 Not Tested	COVID-19 Tested	P	COVID-19-	COVID-19+	P
Number	25,803	900		694	206
Age	76 (65–85)	73 (62–82)	<0.001	72 (61–81)	78 (65–87)	<0.001
Female	11,701 (45.3%)	457 (50.8%)	<0.001	344 (49.6%)	113 (54.9%)	0.18
Black	3,414 (13.2%)	205 (22.8%)	<0.001	143 (20.6%)	62 (30.1%)	<0.05
White	19,824 (76.8%)	598 (66.4%)	<0.001	479 (69.0%)	119 (57.8%)	<0.05
Medicare	11,032 (42.8%)	334 (37.1%)	<0.001	268 (38.6%)	66 (32.0%)	0.086
Medicaid	2,040 (7.9%)	115 (12.8%)	<0.001	95 (13.7%)	20 (9.7%)	0.13
BMI	28.91 (24.82–34.41)	29.12 (24.26–35.26)	0.84	29.28 (24.43–35.26)	28.67 (23.91–35.14)	0.29
HFrEF	4,052 (22.8%)	189 (21.0%)	0.14	153 (22.0%)	36 (17.5%)	0.16
Hypertension	18,001 (69.8%)	665 (73.9%)	0.008	501 (72.2%)	164 (79.6%)	<0.05
COPD	8,006 (31.0%)	263 (29.2%)	0.25	196 (28.2%)	67 (32.5%)	0.24
CAD	8,006 (31.0%)	269 (29.9%)	0.47	196 (28.2%)	73 (35.4%)	<0.05
Renal Disease	7,131 (27.6%)	317 (35.2%)	<0.001	238 (34.3%)	79 (38.3%)	0.28
NT-proBNP	1733 (592–4714)	2092 (648–6515)	<0.001	2276 (704–6598)	1357 (502–5281)	<0.05
Sodium	140 (138–141)	139 (137–142)	0.016	139 (137–142)	139 (137–142)	0.49
Chloride	103 (100–105)	102 (98–105)	0.003	102 (98–105)	102 (99–106)	0.68
Creatinine	1.1 (.88–1.46)	1.2 (.88–1.9)	<0.001	1.19 (.87–1.88)	1.3 (.93–1.97)	<0.05
BUN	22 (16–31)	26 (17–41.5)	<0.001	25 (16–40)	30 (19–46)	<0.05
HbA1c	6.2 (5.7–7.3)	6.3 (5.7–7.5)	0.08	6.3 (5.7–7.5)	6.5 (5.7–7.7)	0.6
ACE-I/ARB	13,354 (51.8%)	312 (34.7%)	<0.001	254 (36.6%)	58 (28.2%)	<0.05
ARNI	2,077 (8.0%)	54 (6.0%)	0.026	48 (6.9%)	6 (2.9%)	<0.05
Beta Blocker	13,568 (52.6%)	429 (47.7%)	0.004	335 (48.3%)	94 (45.6%)	0.51
CCB	6,879 (26.7%)	283 (31.4%)	0.001	214 (30.8%)	69 (33.5%)	0.47
SGLT2i	810 (3.1%)	25 (2.8%)	0.54	24 (3.5%)	1 (0.5%)	0.02
Warfarin	2,811 (10.9%)	81 (9.0%)	0.07	65 (9.4%)	16 (7.8%)	0.48
NOAC	7,052 (27.3%)	267 (29.7%)	0.12	220 (31.7%)	47 (22.8%)	0.01
Diuretic	15,913 (61.7%)	518 (57.6%)	0.013	419 (60.4%)	99 (48.1%)	0.002
Statin	16,761 (65.0%)	556 (61.8%)	0.05	439 (63.3%)	117 (56.8%)	<0.05

Data are presented as median (IQR) for continuous measures, and n (%) for categorical measures.

Of the HF registry patients tested for COVID-19, 23% were positive. Those who tested positive were significantly more likely to be older, black, hypertensive, and with coronary artery disease. They had higher BUN and creatinine at baseline. They were significantly less likely to be on renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers at time of diagnosis. Of note, use of Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), Direct- Acting Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs), diuretics, and statins were also lower in this patient cohort. A significantly higher percentage of these patients were on Medicaid than in the overall cohort. Multivariable modeling revealed that black race, hypertension, lung disease, less DOAC and statin use, and number of prior hospital admissions were all independent predictors of testing positive for COVID-19 (P<0.05 all; AUC 0.69).

Fig 1 demonstrates the geospatial mapping of all patients who are included in the Yale Heart Failure Registry. It includes patients from all over Connecticut, Westchester County, NY, and Western Rhode Island. Fig 2 shows patients who tested positive and negative for COVID-19, with each dot representing a geographical location. As shown, patients who tested negative tended to more diffusely spread across the state, but those who tested positive were largely clustered around the cities of Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut.

Fig 2

(a). Geospatial mapping of heart failure patients who tested negative for COVID-19. Dots represent individual patient home addresses. (b). Geospatial mapping of heart failure patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Dots represent individual patient home addresses.

Testing for associations between baseline demographics (age, sex, race, BMI, and HFrEF) and key clinical outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and death revealed the following: BMI was associated with an increased risk of ICU admission [OR 1.04 95% CI (1.00–1.08); P = 0.036] and intubation [OR 1.07 95% CI (1.02–1.12); P = 0.004]. Only age (increments of 10 years) was associated with increased risk of death [OR 1.92 95% CI (1.33–2.78); P<0.001].

Table 2 compares the clinical characteristics and admission laboratories of COVID- 19+ patients who are alive versus who died at the time of this analysis. Of the heart failure patients testing positive for the virus, 20% died. These patients were more likely to be older (mean age 87) and white. Most patients who died had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; ≈90%) and high rates of comorbid conditions. They also had significantly more abnormal values for baseline BUN, Creatinine, and N- terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), reflecting more advanced cardiovascular and renal disease. Additionally, they had significantly higher levels of COVID-19 specific laboratory test abnormalities including higher LDH, troponin T, procalcitonin, INR, Ferritin, CRP, AST, and absolute lymphocyte counts. Of the 206 patients who were COVID-19+, the majority (67%) were ≥85 years of age. In this cohort, rates of hospitalization were 87%. At the time of this analysis, 34 (62%) of these patients remained hospitalized and 20 (36%) had died.

Table 2

Characteristics of COVID-19+ patients according to clinical outcome.

Characteristic	COVID-19+ (Alive)	COVID-19+ (Dead)	P
Number	172	34
Age	76 (62–85)	87 (80–89)	<0.001
Female Sex	96 (55.8%)	17 (50.0%)	0.53
Black	56 (32.6%)	6 (17.6%)	0.21
White	95 (55.2%)	24 (70.6%)
BMI	28.67 (23.65–35.17)	28.235 (24.64–33.21)	0.98
HFrEF	33 (19.2%)	3 (8.8%)	0.15
Hypertension	138 (80.2%)	26 (76.5%)	0.62
COPD	55 (32.0%)	12 (35.3%)	0.71
CAD	55 (32.0%)	18 (52.9%)	0.02
Kidney Disease	60 (34.9%)	19 (55.9%)	0.02
NT-proBNP	1289 (435–4016)	4275 (1090–7351)	0.03
Sodium	139 (137–142)	139 (135–142)	0.48
Chloride	102 (99–106)	102 (96–106)	0.8
Creatinine	1.2 (0.9–1.8)	1.7 (1.3–2.9)	<0.01
BUN	27.5 (18–45)	37 (25–48)	0.03
HbA1c	6.5 (5.7–7.6)	6.4 (5.9–8.1)	0.73
ACE-I/ARB	51 (29.7%)	7 (20.6%)	0.28
Beta Blocker	72 (41.9%)	22 (64.7%)	0.015
LDH	298 (242–408)	373 (268–419)	0.05
Troponin T	0.02 (0–0.05)	0.06 (0.02–0.13)	<0.001
Procalcitonin	0.16 (0.08–0.41)	0.37 (0.16–1.13)	0.004
INR	1.05 (0.99–1.18)	1.13 (1.03–1.42)	0.04
Fibrinogen	500 (383–597)	480 (371–611)	0.95
Ferritin	501 (186–876)	694 (233–1524)	0.05
D-dimer	1.25 (0.73–2.44)	1.19 (0.75–3.30)	0.40
CRP	50 (13–119)	85 (24–213)	0.05
AST	34 (22–50)	43 (30–87)	0.01
ALC	0.9 (0.6–1.3)	0.6 (0.4–0.9)	<0.01

Data are presented as median (IQR) for continuous measures, and n (%) for categorical measures.

Fig 3 shows medical and supportive interventions among COVID-19+ patients according to whether they are alive or dead at time of data extraction. Those who died were significantly more likely to have been treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and atazanavir, likely reflecting more advanced disease. Those who died were also significantly more likely to be admitted to the ICU and require intensive oxygen support and intubation.

Fig 3

Medical and supportive interventions in COVID-19+ patients according to clinical outcome.

ICU = Intensive Care Unit; HFNC = High flow nasal canula; NIPPV = Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation; CMO = comfort measures only.

Discussion

In this real-world analysis of a live heart failure registry across a large integrated health care system, we found that <4% of patients (900/26,703) had symptoms that met criteria and were able to get COVID-19 testing. Among the patients tested, 23% were positive, and they tended to cluster around the cities of Bridgeport and New Haven.

COVID-19+ patients were more likely to be black, have comorbid conditions, and were less likely to be on renin angiotensin blockade at time of testing. Of the COVID-19+ heart failure patients, 20% died, and they tended to be elderly (mean age 87) white patients with HFpEF. In their entirety, these data demonstrate the need for greater geographical based testing and interventions, particularly in vulnerable communities, and a greater focus on goals of care discussions among elderly heart failure patients who test positive.

This is the first report describing the impact of COVID-19 infection in a geographically contained population of heart failure patients under the purview of an integrated health care system, providing insight into how such a system can be used to analyze early data on diagnosis status and outcomes ascertainment among its population. We found that although testing was scattered across the state, those who tested positive tended to cluster around two cities—New Haven and Bridgeport, two of the cities with the lowest median household income in the state ($41,142 and $45,441 versus $76,106 for the state), and the highest percentage of black inhabitants (33.0% and 35.3%, versus 12% for the state) [6]. This disparity in both testing, and infection rates has been recently noted, with preliminary data showing that underrepresented minorities are developing COVID-19 infection more frequently [7]. The causes for this finding are multifaceted and have been hypothesized to include the disproportionate number of minorities who are exposed to COVID-19 in their roles as “essential workers” and who spread the disease to their residentially segregated communities. Also, situations associated with lower socioeconomic conditions, such as housing insecurity and access to health care barriers, can facilitate the spread of infectious diseases. Taken together, these findings suggest an urgent need for a more nuanced strategy to tackle the disparate impact of the virus across vulnerable populations, including those with heart failure who are at particularly high risk.

Interestingly, we noted a significantly greater use of renin angiotensin blockade in both untested and negative patients in the registry. Compared to patients in the registry on an ACE-I/ARB, those not on these therapies were 50% more likely to be COVID-19+. Furthermore, rates were also significantly lower than in patients who tested negative.

Whereas these are cross-sectional observational data, they corroborate recent reports from China demonstrating a potential benefit of these therapies among COVID-19+ patients [8]. At the very least, this might suggest that these therapies do not increase risk in patients with heart failure and supports the AHA/ACC/HFSA statement supporting ongoing use of renin angiotensin blockade in heart failure patients during the pandemic [9].

Our study shows that a large portion of deaths occurred in elderly patients. High rates of mortality and morbidity have been described in older patients from Italy; however, less than 2% of their cohort was >80 years [3]. In our cohort, we noted 33% of COVID-19+ positive patients to be ≥85 years old. These patients had hospitalization rates of approximately 90%, 36% had died at the time of this analysis, and all the rest except one patient remained hospitalized. This suggests that special importance should be given to elderly individuals with HF when discussing testing distribution and early access to preventive therapies upon availability, such as vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. This also suggests an urgent need for early goals of care discussions in elderly heart failure patients who test positive for COVID-19+ given long hospitalizations and high mortality rates despite aggressive treatment [10, 11].

Limitations

Our study has several notable limitations. First, we only included patients who were tested for COVID-19+ and other patients in the registry with the infection might have been uncounted due to either been asymptomatic, did not pursue testing for symptoms, or may have not been offered diagnostic testing. This is currently the practice at most medical centers across the United States. As such our findings should be considered a conservative estimate of the expanse of COVID19+ HF patients in the communities covered by the registry. Second, despite laboratory testing and interventions currently being performed in a protocolized manner across the Yale New Haven Health Care System, some patients might have been hospitalized prior to widespread application of this care pathway. Third, many of the patients described in the study remain hospitalized, leading to likely underreporting of total deaths from COVID-19+ in our cohort. Finally, the study has limitations inherent in any registry, where a high degree of granularity about heart failure is missing and all testing is solely performed at the clinician’s discretion.

Conclusions

In this real-world snapshot of COVID-19 infection among a large cohort of heart failure patients under the purview of an integrated health care system during peak infection time, we found that a very small percentage underwent testing. Patients found to be COVID-19+ tended to be black with multiple comorbidities and clustered around lower socioeconomic status communities in the State. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality.

YNHHS initial treatment algorithm for hospitalized adults with non-severe COVID–19.

(JPG)

Click here for additional data file.

YNHHS initial treatment algorithm for hospitalized adults with severe COVID–19.

(JPG)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

18 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-13485

COVID-19 Infections and Outcomes in a Live Registry of Heart Failure Patients Across an Integrated Health Care System

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahmad,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the database used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have their data used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Caraballo C. and Collegues described the social and clinical profile, the prevalence and the predictors of outcomes of a large sample of HF patients positive to SARS-CoV-2, registered in the YALE Heart Failure Registry in Connecticut area.

Being able to use a real-time registry the authors have clearly described the clinical differences of 900 symptomatic COVID+ HF patients in respect those COVID- and the predictors of poor outcomes in this subgroup of HF patients.

Although some clinical data had already been confirmed elsewhere, in this study some interesting findings must be underlined: the elevated rate of death (20%) in very elderly (>85 years) HF patients with symptomatic COVID, the negative prognostic role of high burden of comorbid conditions as well as the low level of socioeconomic status. This data, together of other clinical evidences, clearly suggest how HF older frail patients should be the priority for any prevention program of vaccination or other preventive care program. Also interesting is the data concerning the positive association RAAS inhibitor drugs and prognosis; moreover this result is found in a large population of patients in whom these drugs have a high level of evidence based recommendation. Another flag finding concerns the low percentage of HF patients underwent testing for COVID, this report, in my opinion, is another important clinical alert that must be taken into account by those who have health- care system responsibilities.

Thus I think that this paper, well written, deserves a good consideration for publication in the Journal accounting the aforementioned considerations.

Obviously this is a retrospectively analysis but in my opinion it does not reduce significantly the clinical value.

Reviewer #2: The authors assessed how many patients include in their Yale Heart Failure Registry (N=26,703). Were tested for COVID-19 and were positive . they then compare the clinical characteristics of the positive patients versus the negative ones and show that covid positive patients tend to be more geographically concentrated, an expected finding based on the characteristic of the disease. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality.

The study is clearly written. However, its clinical implications and novelty compared with current literature seem extremely limited. In the discussion, the authors state “This is the first report describing the impact of COVID-19 infection in a geographically contained population of heart failure patients under the purview of an integrated health care system.” I agree but is this worthwhile? Then, they state “We found that (…) those who tested positive tended to cluster around two cities—New Haven and Bridgeport, two of the cities with the lowest median household income in the state…” Again, this conforms data with most of infective disease.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review Plose one.doc

Click here for additional data file.

20 Aug 2020

Response to Reviewer Comments

Caraballo et al. PLOS ONE.

RE: PONE-D-20-13485

REVIEWER #1

Caraballo C. and Colleagues described the social and clinical profile, the prevalence and the predictors of outcomes of a large sample of HF patients positive to SARS-CoV-2, registered in the YALE Heart Failure Registry in Connecticut area.

Being able to use a real-time registry the authors have clearly described the clinical differences of 900 symptomatic COVID+ HF patients in respect those COVID- and the predictors of poor outcomes in this subgroup of HF patients.

Although some clinical data had already been confirmed elsewhere, in this study some interesting findings must be underlined: the elevated rate of death (20%) in very elderly (>85 years) HF patients with symptomatic COVID, the negative prognostic role of high burden of comorbid conditions as well as the low level of socioeconomic status. This data, together of other clinical evidences, clearly suggest how HF older frail patients should be the priority for any prevention program of vaccination or other preventive care program. Also interesting is the data concerning the positive association RAAS inhibitor drugs and prognosis; moreover this result is found in a large population of patients in whom these drugs have a high level of evidence based recommendation. Another flag finding concerns the low percentage of HF patients underwent testing for COVID, this report, in my opinion, is another important clinical alert that must be taken into account by those who have health- care system responsibilities.

Thus I think that this paper, well written, deserves a good consideration for publication in the Journal accounting the aforementioned considerations.

Obviously this is a retrospectively analysis but in my opinion it does not reduce significantly the clinical value.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their kind and important comments. We have incorporated them into our manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer of the uttermost importance of increasing access to testing and vaccination to elderly patients with HF. We have modified the discussion section as shown below (additions underlined):

Pages 13 and 14, lines 217-224:

“In our cohort, we noted 33% of COVID-19+ positive patients to be ≥85 years old. These patients had hospitalization rates of approximately 90%, 36% had died at the time of this analysis, and all the rest except one patient remained hospitalized. This suggests that special importance should be given to elderly individuals with HF when discussing testing distribution and early access to preventive therapies upon availability, such as vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. This also suggests an urgent need for early goals of care discussions in elderly heart failure patients who test positive for COVID-19+ given long hospitalizations and high mortality rates despite aggressive treatment.”

__________

REVIEWER #2

The authors assessed how many patients include in their Yale Heart Failure Registry (N=26,703). Were tested for COVID-19 and were positive . they then compare the clinical characteristics of the positive patients versus the negative ones and show that covid positive patients tend to be more geographically concentrated, an expected finding based on the characteristic of the disease. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality.

The study is clearly written. However, its clinical implications and novelty compared with current literature seem extremely limited. In the discussion, the authors state “This is the first report describing the impact of COVID-19 infection in a geographically contained population of heart failure patients under the purview of an integrated health care system.” I agree but is this worthwhile? Then, they state “We found that (…) those who tested positive tended to cluster around two cities—New Haven and Bridgeport, two of the cities with the lowest median household income in the state…” Again, this conforms data with most of infective disease.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments, which have helped us improve our manuscript. Although everyday new data on COVID-19 is being published, its implications in patients with heart failure are still being elucidated and our study contributes to this knowledge by demonstrating early outcomes among these patients, using a health care system that facilitates outcomes detection and ascertainment in our region. We have modified the discussion to better reflect this, as shown below (additions underlined):

Page 12, lines 181-183:

“This is the first report describing the impact of COVID-19 infection in a geographically contained population of heart failure patients under the purview of an integrated health care system, providing insight into how such a system can be used to analyze early data on diagnosis status and outcomes ascertainment among its population.”

Also, we agree that the SARS-CoV-2 transmission among individuals with low SES may be a function of higher spread of infectious diseases in general. We have added this as one of the plausible explanations of our findings (additions underlined):

Page 13, lines 196-198:

“The causes for this finding are multifaceted and have been hypothesized to include the disproportionate number of minorities who are exposed to COVID-19 in their roles as “essential workers” and who spread the disease to their residentially segregated communities. Also, situations associated with lower socioeconomic conditions, such as housing insecurity and access to health care barriers, can facilitate the spread of infectious diseases. Taken together, these findings suggest an urgent need for a more nuanced strategy to tackle the disparate impact of the virus across vulnerable populations, including those with heart failure who are at particularly high risk.”

Submitted filename: ResponseLetter_YaleHF-COVID19_PlosOne 8.20.20.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Aug 2020

COVID-19 Infections and Outcomes in a Live Registry of Heart Failure Patients Across an Integrated Health Care System

PONE-D-20-13485R1

Dear Dr. Ahmad,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

4 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-13485R1

COVID-19 Infections and Outcomes in a Live Registry of Heart Failure Patients Across an Integrated Health Care System

Dear Dr. Ahmad:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE