Background
The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer ...it remains undefined.
Objective
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation.
Design
A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and
d
-dimer values.
Patients
A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ).
Main Measures
The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
Key Results
A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%,
p
=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%,
p
=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high–risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%,
p
=0.049).
Conclusions
The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.
Background
Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed.
...Objective
To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Design
PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them.
Participants
Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network.
Key results
We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%.
Conclusions
PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.
Smoking can play a key role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the course of the disease. Previous studies have conflicting or inconclusive results on the prevalence of smoking and the severity of the ...coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Observational, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 14,260 patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spanish hospitals between February and September 2020. Their clinical characteristics were recorded and the patients were classified into a smoking group (active or former smokers) or a non-smoking group (never smokers). The patients were followed up to one month after discharge. Differences between groups were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression and Kapplan Meier curves analyzed the relationship between smoking and in-hospital mortality.
The median age was 68.6 (55.8-79.1) years, with 57.7% of males. Smoking patients were older (69.9 59.6-78.0 years), more frequently male (80.3%) and with higher Charlson index (4 2-6) than non-smoking patients. Smoking patients presented a worse evolution, with a higher rate of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (10.4 vs 8.1%), higher in-hospital mortality (22.5 vs. 16.4%) and readmission at one month (5.8 vs. 4.0%) than in non-smoking patients. After multivariate analysis, smoking remained associated with these events.
Active or past smoking is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. It is associated with higher ICU admissions and in-hospital mortality.
Smoking can play a key role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the course of the disease. Previous studies have conflicting or inconclusive results on the prevalence of smoking and the severity of the ...coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Observational, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 14,260 patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spanish hospitals between February and September 2020. Their clinical characteristics were recorded and the patients were classified into a smoking group (active or former smokers) or a non-smoking group (never smokers). The patients were followed up to one month after discharge. Differences between groups were analysed. A multivariate logistic regression and Kapplan Meier curves analysed the relationship between smoking and in-hospital mortality.
The median age was 68.6 (55.8−79.1) years, with 57.7% of males. Smoking patients were older (69.9 (59.6−78.0 years)), more frequently male (80.3%) and with higher Charlson index (4 (2−6)) than non-smoking patients. Smoking patients presented a worse evolution, with a higher rate of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (10.4 vs. 8.1%), higher in-hospital mortality (22.5 vs. 16.4%) and readmission at one month (5.8 vs. 4.0%) than in non-smoking patients. After multivariate analysis, smoking remained associated with these events.
Active or past smoking is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. It is associated with higher ICU admissions and in-hospital mortality.
El tabaquismo puede tener un papel importante en la infección por SARS-CoV-2 y en el curso de la enfermedad. Los estudios previos muestran resultados contradictorios o no concluyentes sobre la prevalencia de fumar y la severidad en la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19).
Estudio de cohortes observacional, multicéntrico y retrospectivo de 14.260 pacientes que ingresaron por COVID-19 en hospitales españoles desde febrero a septiembre de 2020. Se registraron sus características clínicas y se clasificaron en el grupo con tabaquismo si tabaquismo activo o previo o en el grupo sin tabaquismo si nunca habían fumado. Se realizó un seguimiento hasta un mes después del alta. Se analizaron las diferencias entre grupos. La relación entre tabaquismo y mortalidad intrahospitalaria se valoró mediante una regresión logística multivariante y curvas de Kapplan Meier.
La mediana de edad fue 68,6 (55,8–79,1) años, con un 57,7% de varones. El grupo con tabaquismo presentó mayor edad (69,9 (59,6–78,0 años)), predominio masculino (80,3%) y mayor índice de Charlson (4 (2−6)). La evolución fue peor en estos pacientes, con una mayor tasa de ingreso en UCI (10,4 vs 8,1%), mayor mortalidad intrahospitalaria (22,5 vs 16,4%) y reingreso al mes (5,8 vs 4,0%) que el grupo sin tabaquismo. Tras el análisis multivariante, el tabaquismo permanecía asociado a estos eventos.
El tabaquismo de forma activa o pasada es un factor predictor independiente de mal pronóstico en los pacientes con COVID-19, estando asociada a mayor probabilidad de ingreso en UCI y a mayor mortalidad intrahospitalaria.
OBJECTIVESTo describe the care provided at the end of life for patients who die in internal medicine departments. METHODSAn observational, cross-sectional, retrospective multicentre, clinical audit ...study was conducted where each hospital included the first 10 patients who died in the internal medicine department starting on December 1, 2015. We collected demographic and clinical data and information regarding the circumstances and care at the time of death. RESULTSThe study included 1,447 patients with a median age of 84 years. Of these, 1,065 (74.3%) were polypathological, 751 (51.9%) were terminal and 248 (17.1%) had cancer. For the terminal patients, do-not-resuscitate orders were established for 539 (73.3%), and palliative sedation was performed for 422 (57.4%). There was no record as to whether psychological, religious or grief care was provided in 32%, 64.8% and 44.1% of the terminal patients, respectively. The patients with cancer were more often competent to make decisions (54.4% vs. 15.5%; P<.001), knew their prognosis (42.6% vs. 8.6%; P<.001), received psychological care (24.9% vs. 8.6%; P<.001), died in an individual room (64.6% vs. 44.4%; P<.001) and were accompanied (81.9% vs. 71.9%; P=.003). Their relatives also more frequently received grief care (15.6% vs. 8.2%; P=.002). CONCLUSIONSThere is insufficient recording in the medical history as to the end-of-life care. There are differences in the care provided to patients with cancer and to those without cancer.
PDF
