ABSTRACT
Introduction: Asthma, along with inhaled steroids, was initially considered a risk factor for worse clinical outcomes in COVID-19. This was related to the higher morbidity observed in asthma patients during previous viral outbreaks. This retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prevalence of asthma among patients admitted due to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the impact of inhaled therapies on their outcomes. Furthermore, a comparison between patients with asthma, COPD and the general population was made. Methods: All COVID-19 inpatients were recruited between February and July 2020 from four large hospitals in Northwest Italy. Data concerning medical history, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the hospital stay, including length, drugs and COVID-19 complications (respiratory failure, lung involvement, and the need for respiratory support) were collected, as well as the type of discharge. Results: patients with asthma required high-flow oxygen therapy (33.3 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (17.9 vs. 9.5%, p = 0.048) more frequently when compared to the general population, but no other difference was observed. Moreover, asthma patients were generally younger than patients with COPD (59.2 vs. 76.8 years, p < 0.001), they showed both a lower mortality rate (15.4 vs. 39.4%, p < 0.001) and a lower CCI (3.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.001). Patients with asthma in regular therapy with ICS at home had significantly shorter hospital stay compared to those with no treatments (25.2 vs. 11.3 days, p = 0.024). Discussion: Our study showed that asthma is not associated with worse outcomes of COVID-19, despite the higher need for respiratory support compared with the general population, while the use of ICS allowed for a shorter hospital stay. In addition, the comparison of asthma with COPD patients confirmed the greater frailty of the latter, according to their multiple comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
The clinical significance of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in the context of infections has attracted attention since their first discovery in patients with syphilis. In fact, the recognition of aPL in patients with infections has been described in parallel to the understating of the syndrome. Since the first description of aPL-positive tests in three patients with COVID-19 diagnosed in January 2020 in Wuhan, China, a large number of studies took part in the ongoing debate on SARS-2-Cov 2 induced coagulopathy, and many following reports speculated a potential role for aPL. In order to get further insights on the effective role of detectable aPL in the pro-thrombotic status observed in COVID-19 patients, we performed an observational age-sex controlled study to compare the aPL profile of hospitalized patients with COVID with those observed in a) patients with thrombotic APS and b) patients with cultural/serologically-proved infections. Our data showed positive aPL testing in about half of the patients (53%) with COVID-19 and patients with other viral/bacterial infections (49%). However, aPL profile was different when comparing patients with overt APS and patients with aPL detected in the contest of infections. Caution is therefore required in the interpretation and generalization of the role of aPL s in the management of patients with COVID-19. Before introducing aPL testing as a part of the routine testing in patients with COVID-19, larger well-designed clinical studies are required. While the pro-thrombotic status in patients with COVID-19 is now unquestionable, different mechanisms other than aPL should be further investigated.