Differences in clinical features and mortality in very old unvaccinated patients (≥ 80 years) hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first and successive waves from the multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry (Spain).

BACKGROUND: Old age is one of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19. Few studies have analyzed changes in the clinical characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 among older adults before the availability of vaccines. This work analyzes differences in clinical features and mortality in unvaccinated very old adults during the first and successive COVID-19 waves in Spain. METHODS: This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzes unvaccinated patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Patients were classified according to whether they were admitted in the first wave (March 1-June 30, 2020) or successive waves (July 1-December 31, 2020). The endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, expressed as the case fatality rate (CFR). RESULTS: Of the 21,461 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 5,953 (27.7%) were ≥ 80 years (mean age [IQR]: 85.6 [82.3-89.2] years). Of them, 4,545 (76.3%) were admitted during the first wave and 1,408 (23.7%) during successive waves. Patients hospitalized in successive waves were older, had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index and dependency, less cough and fever, and met fewer severity criteria at admission (qSOFA index, PO2/FiO2 ratio, inflammatory parameters). Significant differences were observed in treatments used in the first (greater use of antimalarials, lopinavir, and macrolides) and successive waves (greater use of corticosteroids, tocilizumab and remdesivir). In-hospital complications, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia, were less frequent in patients hospitalized in successive waves, except for heart failure. The CFR was significantly higher in the first wave (44.1% vs. 33.3%; -10.8%; p < 0.001) and was higher among patients ≥ 95 years (54.4% vs. 38.5%; -15.9%; p < 0.001). After adjustments to the model, the probability of death was 33% lower in successive waves (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality declined significantly between the first and successive waves in very old unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain. This decline could be explained by a greater availability of hospital resources and more effective treatments as the pandemic progressed, although other factors such as changes in SARS-CoV-2 virulence cannot be ruled out.

Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19☆ Resumen Ejecutivo del Consenso de expertos sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los iDPP-4 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes y COVID-19

Background This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019–February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. Results Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). Conclusions The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

[Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19]. / Resumen Ejecutivo del Consenso de expertos sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los iDPP-4 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes y COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

Cardiometabolic Therapy and Mortality in Very Old Patients With Diabetes Hospitalized due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The effects of cardiometabolic drugs on the prognosis of diabetic patients with COVID-19, especially very old patients, are not well known. This work was aimed to analyze the association between preadmission cardiometabolic therapy (antidiabetic, antiaggregant, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering drugs) and in-hospital mortality among patients ≥80 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) hospitalized for COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, observational study in patients ≥80 years with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and May 29, 2020. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between preadmission cardiometabolic therapy and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2 763 patients ≥80 years old hospitalized due to COVID-19, 790 (28.6%) had T2DM. Of these patients, 385 (48.7%) died during admission. On the multivariate analysis, the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.502, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.309-0.815, p = .005) and angiotensin receptor blockers (AOR 0.454, 95% CI: 0.274-0.759, p = .003) were independent protectors against in-hospital mortality, whereas the use of acetylsalicylic acid was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.761, 95% CI: 1.092-2.842, p = .020). Other antidiabetic drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins showed neutral association with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found important differences between cardiometabolic drugs and in-hospital mortality in older patients with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19. Preadmission treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could reduce in-hospital mortality; other antidiabetic drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins seem to have a neutral effect; and acetylsalicylic acid could be associated with excess mortality.

Prior Treatment with Statins is Associated with Improved Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19: Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of statins on COVID-19 outcomes is important given the high prevalence of their use among individuals at risk for severe COVID-19. Our aim is to assess whether patients receiving chronic statin treatment who are hospitalized with COVID-19 have reduced in-hospital mortality if statin therapy is maintained during hospitalization. METHODS: This work is a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study that analyzed 2921 patients who required hospital admission at 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics and COVID-19 disease outcomes between patients receiving chronic statin therapy who maintained this therapy during hospitalization versus those who did not. Propensity score matching was used to match each statin user whose therapy was maintained during hospitalization to a statin user whose therapy was withdrawn during hospitalization. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, continuation of statin therapy was associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 0.54-0.83, p < 0.001); lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.76,0.6-0.97, p = 0.025), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (OR 0.78, 0.69- 0.89, p < 0.001), and sepsis (4.82% vs 9.85%, p = 0.008); and less need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (5.35% vs 8.57, p < 0.001) compared to patients whose statin therapy was withdrawn during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients previously treated with statins who are hospitalized for COVID-19 and maintain statin therapy during hospitalization have a lower mortality rate than those in whom therapy is withdrawn. In addition, statin therapy was associated with a decreased probability that patients with COVID-19 will develop AKI, ARDS, or sepsis and decreases the need for IMV.

Gender-Based Differences by Age Range in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Spanish Observational Cohort Study.

There is some evidence that male gender could have a negative impact on the prognosis and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between hospitalized men and women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study is based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We analyzed the differences between men and women for a wide variety of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables, and the sex distribution of the reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as intensive care unit (ICU) admission by age subgroups. This work analyzed 12,063 patients (56.8% men). The women in our study were older than the men, on average (67.9 vs. 65.7 years; p < 001). Bilateral condensation was more frequent among men than women (31.8% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.007). The men needed non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation more frequently (5.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001, and 7.9% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). The most prevalent complication was acute respiratory distress syndrome, with severe cases in 19.9% of men (p < 0.001). In men, intensive care unit admission was more frequent (10% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (23.1% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.001). Regarding mortality, the differences by gender were statistically significant in the age groups from 55 years to 89 years of age. A multivariate analysis showed that female sex was significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of mortality in our study. Male sex appears to be related to worse progress in COVID-19 patients and is an independent prognostic factor for mortality. In order to fully understand its prognostic impact, other factors associated with sex must be considered.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

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.

Association of Hypertension with All-Cause Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

It is unclear to which extent the higher mortality associated with hypertension in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is due to its increased prevalence among older patients or to specific mechanisms. Cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study, analyzing 12226 patients who required hospital admission in 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics of survivors versus non-survivors. The mean age of the study population was 67.5 ± 16.1 years, 42.6% were women. Overall, 2630 (21.5%) subjects died. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (50.9%) followed by diabetes (19.1%), and atrial fibrillation (11.2%). Multivariate analysis showed that after adjusting for gender (males, OR: 1.5, p = 0.0001), age tertiles (second and third tertiles, OR: 2.0 and 4.7, p = 0.0001), and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (second and third tertiles, OR: 4.7 and 8.1, p = 0.0001), hypertension was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality when this comorbidity was treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR: 1.6, p = 0.002) or other than renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers (OR: 1.3, p = 0.001) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR: 1.2, p = 0.035). The preexisting condition of hypertension had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization. ARBs showed a lower risk of lethality in hypertensive patients than other antihypertensive drugs.

Admission hyperglycaemia as a predictor of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of diabetes status: data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia has emerged as an important risk factor for death in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between blood glucose (BG) levels and in-hospital mortality in non-critically patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-centre study involving patients hospitalized in Spain. Patients were categorized into three groups according to admission BG levels: <140 mg/dL, 140-180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 11,312 patients, only 2128 (18.9%) had diabetes and 2289 (20.4%) died during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% (<140 mg/dL), 33.7% (140-180 mg) and 41.1% (>180 mg/dL), p<.001. The cumulative probability of mortality was significantly higher in patients with hyperglycaemia compared to patients with normoglycaemia (log rank, p<.001), independently of pre-existing diabetes. Hyperglycaemia (after adjusting for age, diabetes, hypertension and other confounding factors) was an independent risk factor of mortality (BG >180 mg/dL: HR 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.73) (BG 140-180 mg/dL; HR 1.48; 95%CI: 1.29-1.70). Hyperglycaemia was also associated with requirement for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Admission hyperglycaemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in non-critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients regardless of prior history of diabetes. KEY MESSAGE Admission hyperglycaemia is a stronger and independent risk factor for mortality in COVID-19. Screening for hyperglycaemia, in patients without diabetes, and early treatment of hyperglycaemia should be mandatory in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Admission hyperglycaemia should not be overlooked in all patients regardless prior history of diabetes.

Association of Hypertension with All-Cause Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

It is unclear to which extent the higher mortality associated with hypertension in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is due to its increased prevalence among older patients or to specific mechanisms. Cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study, analyzing 12226 patients who required hospital admission in 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics of survivors versus non-survivors. The mean age of the study population was 67.5 ±16.1 years, 42.6% were women. Overall, 2630 (21.5%) subjects died. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (50.9%) followed by diabetes (19.1%), and atrial fibrillation (11.2%). Multivariate analysis showed that after adjusting for gender (males, OR: 1.5, p = 0.0001), age tertiles (second and third tertiles, OR: 2.0 and 4.7, p = 0.0001), and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (second and third tertiles, OR: 4.7 and 8.1, p = 0.0001), hypertension was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality when this comorbidity was treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR: 1.6, p = 0.002) or other than renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers (OR: 1.3, p = 0.001) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR: 1.2, p = 0.035). The preexisting condition of hypertension had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization. ARBs showed a lower risk of lethality in hypertensive patients than other antihypertensive drugs.