Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Qatar Med J ; 2022(3): 24, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924536

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at a higher risk of poor outcomes from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We evaluated whether patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were at a higher risk of a poorer outcome than those without an ARDs. METHODS: Patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were matched to control patients without a known ARDs. Matching was performed according to age ( ± 6 years) and sex at a case-to-control ratio of 1:3. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the databases and were compared between the two groups. Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was the primary outcome and was defined as the requirement for oxygen therapy support, the need for invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or the use of glucocorticoids. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients with an ARDs were matched to 398 patients who formed the control group. The mean ages (SD) of the ARDs and non-ARDs groups were 44.4 years (11.4) and 43.4 years (12.2). Women accounted for 58.8% of the ARDs group and 56.3% of the control group (p = 0.59). Demographics and comorbidities were balanced between the groups. ARDs included connective tissue disease in 43 (30.3%) patients, inflammatory arthritis in 92 (65.2%), and other ARDs in 8 (5.7%). ARDs medications included biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts-DMARDs) in 28 (15.6%) patients, conventional synthetic DMARDs in 95 (67.4%), and immunosuppressive antimetabolites in 13 (9.2%). The ARDs group had more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection than the control group (24.8% and 20.6% vs. 10% and 5.3%, respectively; p <  0.001 for both). Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was more common in the ARDs group than in the control group (14.9% vs. 5.8%; p <  0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center matched cohort study, patients with an ARDs experienced more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and had more severe infection than those from the control group. Therefore, patients with an ARDs require close observation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

2.
Qatar Med J ; 2022(2): 11, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1811102

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is thought to be caused by immune overdrive and cytokine storm. One of the cytokine storm syndromes frequently induced by infections is secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) which can be assessed using H-score. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the rate of patients with COVID-19 who meet HLH criteria based on H-score and the association of H-score with poor outcomes. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of 19 patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU stay from March to May, 2020, we collected demographic and clinical data that focused on H-score's variables and COVID-19 outcomes. H-score ≥ 169 was used to determine the percentage of patients who met the HLH criteria. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman rho tests and multiple regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the associated factors. The optimal H-score cut-off to predict poor COVID-19 outcome (need for intubation ± ECMO) was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: In 669 patients with severe COVID-19 with a mean ± SD age of 50.3 ± 12.8 years, which comprised 95% men; 66% required intubation, 4% ECMO, and 16% died. Only 2% had an H-score ≥ 169. Patients with poor outcomes had a higher mean (SD) H-score than those without; intubation (96.0 [50.0] vs 75.0 [35.0], p < 0.01), ECMO (113.0 [25.0] vs 93.0 [50.0], p < 0.01) and death (98.0 [62.0] vs 93.0 [48.0], p < 0.01). Factors associated with H-score were diabetes (ß coeff = - 10.4, p < 0.01), abdominal pain (ß coeff = 19.1, p < 0.01), duration of COVID-19 symptoms (ß coeff = - 0.7, p = 0.049), and days before ICU admission (ß coeff = - 1.2, p = 0.01). H-score showed a fair ability to discriminate COVID-19 outcomes (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.67). An H-score of 85 was the optimal cut-off with a sensitivity 69% and 1-specificity 53%. CONCLUSION: Despite its association with severity in COVID-19, H-score's ability to predict poor outcomes was only fair, indicating differences in the cytokine storm faced in COVID-19 compared with that during secondary HLH.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL