(1) Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been shown to have adverse inflammatory effects on lung anatomy and physiology. We investigated the impact of DM on COPD patient outcomes during inpatient hospitalization. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) over the years 2002–2014. Three groups, COPD without diabetes, COPD with diabetes but no complication, and COPD with DM and complication, were analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 7,498,577 were COPD hospitalization; of those, 1,799,637 had DM without complications, and 483,467 had DM with complications. After adjusting for clinical, demographic, and comorbidities, the odds of increased LOS in the COPD/DM with complication were 1.37 (confidence interval (CI): 1.326–1.368), and those of DM without complication were 1.061 (1.052–1.070) when compared with COPD alone. The odds of pneumonia, respiratory failure, stroke, and acute kidney injury were also higher in COPD hospitalizations with DM. Both DM with complication (odds ratio (OR): 0.751 (CI 0.727–0.777)) and DM without complication (OR: 0.635 (CI: 0.596–0.675)) have lesser odds of mortality during hospitalization than with COPD alone. (4) Conclusions: There is a considerable inpatient burden among COPD patients with DM in the United States.

Introduction: More than 15 million adults in the USA have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) places a high burden on the healthcare system. Many hospital admissions are due to an exacerbation, which is suspected to be from a viral cause. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients with a positive and negative respiratory virus panel who were admitted to the hospital with COPD exacerbations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the Geisinger Healthcare System. The dataset included 2729 patient encounters between 1 January 2006 and 30 November 2017. Hospital length of stay was calculated as the discrete number of calendar days a patient was in the hospital. Patient encounters with a positive and negative respiratory virus panel were compared using Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. Results: There were 1626 patients with a total of 2729 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation encounters. Nineteen percent of those encounters (n = 524) had a respiratory virus panel performed during their admission. Among these encounters, 161 (30.7%) had positive results, and 363 (69.3%) had negative results. For encounters with the respiratory virus panel, the mean age was 64.5, 59.5% were female, 98.9% were white, and the mean body mass index was 26.6. Those with a negative respiratory virus panel had a higher median white blood cell count (11.1 vs. 9.9, p = 0.0076). There were no other statistically significant differences in characteristics between the two groups. Respiratory virus panel positive patients had a statistically significant longer hospital length of stay. There were no significant differences with respect to being on mechanical ventilation or ventilation-free days. Conclusion: This study shows that a positive respiratory virus panel is associated with increased length of hospital stay. Early diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation patients with positive viral panel would help identify patients with a longer length of stay.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in high-risk patients who are pregnant. Methods The database of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies in the Mayo Clinic Midwest region was reviewed for patients who were pregnant at the time of infusion. Manual chart review was performed to collect demographic details as well as COVID course for both the mother and the infant if delivered. The data are presented using descriptive methods. Results We identified fifty-one pregnant patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were treated with MAb (4 with bamlanivimab monotherapy, 3 with bamlanivimab-etesevimab combination, and 44 with the casirivimab-imdevimab combination). No adverse effects were reported, and no patient required COVID-19 related hospitalization. Twenty-nine patients delivered healthy babies, there was one case of intrauterine fetal demise secondary to a congenital Ebstein anomaly (not related to MAb treatment), and twenty-one were uncomplicated pregnancies. Conclusion MAb infusions were well tolerated in pregnant patients considered at high risk for COVID-19 complications, with no observed adverse effects to mother or fetus. Although preliminary data suggest MAb therapy in pregnancy is safe, further research is recommended to fully assess safety and efficacy in pregnancy. TEACHING POINTS Anti-spike monoclonal antibody therapy is well tolerated in high-risk pregnant patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 No adverse effects of anti-spike monoclonal antibody administration were observed in either the mother or fetus.

Purpose: While the clinical utility for Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) is well-established through its use in clinical practice to enhance diagnostic accuracy, expedite care, and improve patient interactions/communication, its impact on patient experience in outpatient consultative settings remains largely underexplored. We sought to evaluate patients’ experience and satisfaction by incorporating POCUS use during outpatient consultations. Methods: In this prospective, cross-sectional survey study conducted in a consultative outpatient internal medicine practice, a continuous sample of 100 patients undergoing POCUS during routine medical evaluations participated. We assessed patient perspectives using a survey that was adapted from validated instruments. The following items were evaluated using the anonymized survey: the extent of patient understanding, the integration of POCUS into the consultation, its impact on patient-doctor communication, perceived quality of care, and overall patient experience. Results: Most respondents felt better informed about their health (88%), more thoroughly examined (94%), and reported improved confidence in their physician’s assessment (92%) after the POCUS exam. In addition, POCUS was perceived as a natural part of the consultation (95%) and minimally burdensome (93%). Overall, 96% of study respondents agreed that POCUS improved their quality of care, and 98% described their experience as positive or very positive. Open-ended comments emphasized the immediacy of results, enhanced communication, and cost-effectiveness of the POCUS experience. Conclusion: Incorporating POCUS in this environment improved patients’ perceptions of their physician, clinic, and overall care. These findings support the broader adoption of POCUS in similar clinical settings and its potential impact on healthcare delivery and patient satisfaction.