ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Comparar las características, evolución y pronóstico de los pacientes con EPOC hospitalizados por COVID-19 en España en la primera ola con los de la segunda ola. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional de los pacientes hospitalizados en territorio español con diagnóstico de EPOC incluidos en el registro SEMI-COVID-19. Se compararon los antecedentes, la clínica, resultados analíticos y radiológicos, tratamiento y evolución de los pacientes con EPOC hospitalizados en la primera ola (desde marzo hasta junio 2020) frente a los hospitalizados en la segunda ola (desde julio hasta diciembre 2020). Se analizaron los factores de mal pronóstico, definidos como mortalidad por todas las causas y un evento combinado que incluía mortalidad, oxigenoterapia con alto flujo, ventilación mecánica e ingreso en UCI. Resultados: De 21642 pacientes del Registro SEMI COVID-19, están diagnosticados de EPOC el 6,9%, 1128 (6,8%) en la OLA1 y 374 (7,7%) en la OLA2 (p=0,04). Los pacientes de la OLA2 presentan menos tos seca, fiebre y disnea, hipoxemia (43% vs 36%, p < 0,05) y condensación radiológica (46% vs 31%, p < 0,05) que los de la OLA1. La mortalidad es menor en la OLA2 (35% vs 28,6%, p = 0,01). En el global de pacientes la mortalidad y la variable combinada de mal pronóstico fue menor entre los pacientes que recibieron tratamiento inhalador. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con EPOC con ingreso hospitalario por COVID-19 en la segunda ola presentan menos insuficiencia respiratoria y menos afectación radiológica, con mejor pronóstico. Estos pacientes deben recibir tratamiento broncodilatador si no hay contraindicación para el mismo.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious virus, and despite professionals' best efforts, nosocomial COVID-19 (NC) infections have been reported. This work aimed to describe differences in symptoms and outcomes between patients with NC and community-acquired COVID-19 (CAC) and to identify risk factors for severe outcomes among NC patients. METHODS: This is a nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study that analyzed patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. NC was defined as patients admitted for non-COVID-19 diseases with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test on the fifth day of hospitalization or later. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality (IHM). The secondary outcome was other COVID-19-related complications. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 23,219 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,104 (4.8%) were NC. Compared to CAC patients, NC patients were older (median 76 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 vs. 3; p < 0.001), were less symptomatic (p < 0.001), and had normal chest X-rays more frequently (30.8% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for sex, age, dependence, COVID-19 wave, and comorbidities, NC was associated with lower risk of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87; p < 0.001) and higher risk of acute heart failure (aOR: 1.40; 1.12-1.72; p = 0.003), sepsis (aOR: 1.73; 1.33-2.54; p < 0.001), and readmission (aOR: 1.35; 1.03-1.83; p = 0.028). NC was associated with a higher case fatality rate (39.1% vs. 19.2%) in all age groups. IHM was significantly higher among NC patients (aOR: 2.07; 1.81-2.68; p < 0.001). Risk factors for increased IHM in NC patients were age, moderate/severe dependence, malignancy, dyspnea, moderate/severe ARDS, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and shock; odynophagia was associated with lower IHM. CONCLUSIONS: NC is associated with greater mortality and complications compared to CAC. Hospital strategies to prevent NC must be strengthened.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitalization , HospitalsABSTRACT
Introduction: 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). Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
Introducción: 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). Material y métodos: 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. Resultados: La mediana de edad fue 68,6 (55,879,1) años, con un 57,7% de varones. El grupo con tabaquismo presentó mayor edad (69,9 (59,678,0 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. Conclusiones: 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.
ABSTRACT
Introduction 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). Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Registries , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Uncontrolled inflammation following COVID-19 infection is an important characteristic of the most seriously ill patients. The present study aims to describe the clusters of inflammation in COVID-19 and to analyze their prognostic role. This is a retrospective observational study including 15,691 patients with a high degree of inflammation. They were included in the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified 7 clusters. C1 is characterized by lymphopenia, C2 by elevated ferritin, and C3 by elevated LDH. C4 is characterized by lymphopenia plus elevated CRP and LDH and frequently also ferritin. C5 is defined by elevated CRP, and C6 by elevated ferritin and D-dimer, and frequently also elevated CRP and LDH. Finally, C7 is characterized by an elevated D-dimer. The clusters with the highest in-hospital mortality were C4, C6, and C7 (17.4% vs. 18% vs. 15.6% vs. 36.8% vs. 17.5% vs. 39.3% vs. 26.4%). Inflammation clusters were found as independent factors for in-hospital mortality. In detail and, having cluster C1 as reference, the model revealed a worse prognosis for all other clusters: C2 (OR = 1.30, p = 0.001), C3 (OR = 1.14, p = 0.178), C4 (OR = 2.28, p < 0.001), C5 (OR = 1.07, p = 0.479), C6 (OR = 2.29, p < 0.001), and C7 (OR = 1.28, p = 0.001). We identified 7 groups based on the presence of lymphopenia, elevated CRP, LDH, ferritin, and D-dimer at the time of hospital admission for COVID-19. Clusters C4 (lymphopenia + LDH + CRP), C6 (ferritin + D-dimer), and C7 (D-dimer) had the worst prognosis in terms of in-hospital mortality.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lymphopenia , Biomarkers , COVID-19/complications , Ferritins , Humans , Inflammation , Prognosis , Registries , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The WHO ordinal severity scale has been used to predict mortality and guide trials in COVID-19. However, it has its limitations. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare three classificatory and predictive models: the WHO ordinal severity scale, the model based on inflammation grades, and the hybrid model. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with patient data collected and followed up from March 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, from the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. As this was a hospital-based study, the patients included corresponded to categories 3 to 7 of the WHO ordinal scale. Categories 6 and 7 were grouped in the same category. KEY RESULTS: A total of 17,225 patients were included in the study. Patients classified as high risk in each of the WHO categories according to the degree of inflammation were as follows: 63.8% vs. 79.9% vs. 90.2% vs. 95.1% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for WHO ordinal scale categories 3 to 6/7 was as follows: 0.8% vs. 24.3% vs. 45.3% vs. 34% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the combined categories of ordinal scale 3a to 5b was as follows: 0.4% vs. 1.1% vs. 11.2% vs. 27.5% vs. 35.5% vs. 41.1% (p<0.001). The predictive regression model for in-hospital mortality with our proposed combined ordinal scale reached an AUC=0.871, superior to the two models separately. CONCLUSIONS: The present study proposes a new severity grading scale for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In our opinion, it is the most informative, representative, and predictive scale in COVID-19 patients to date.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Inflammation/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , World Health OrganizationABSTRACT
(1) Background: This work aims to analyze clinical outcomes according to ethnic groups in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain. (2) Methods: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study analyzed hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to ethnicity (Latin Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, North Africans, Europeans). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality (IHM), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Associations between ethnic groups and clinical outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index values and wave were evaluated using logistic regression. (3) Results: Of 23,953 patients (median age 69.5 years, 42.9% women), 7.0% were Latin American, 1.2% were North African, 0.5% were Asian, 0.5% were Sub-Saharan African, and 89.7% were European. Ethnic minority patients were significantly younger than European patients (median (IQR) age 49.1 (40.5-58.9) to 57.1 (44.1-67.1) vs. 71.5 (59.5-81.4) years, p < 0.001). The unadjusted IHM was higher in European (21.6%) versus North African (11.4%), Asian (10.9%), Latin American (7.1%), and Sub-Saharan African (3.2%) patients. After further adjustment, the IHM was lower in Sub-Saharan African (OR 0.28 (0.10-0.79), p = 0.017) versus European patients, while ICU admission rates were higher in Latin American and North African versus European patients (OR (95%CI) 1.37 (1.17-1.60), p < 0.001) and (OR (95%CI) 1.74 (1.26-2.41), p < 0.001). Moreover, Latin American patients were 39% more likely than European patients to use IMV (OR (95%CI) 1.43 (1.21-1.71), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The adjusted IHM was similar in all groups except for Sub-Saharan Africans, who had lower IHM. Latin American patients were admitted to the ICU and required IMV more often.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. METHODS: Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. RESULTS: Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59-79] vs 73 years [IQR 61-83]; p < .001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91-2.24 p < .001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.80; p < .001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p .298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p < .001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prednisone/therapeutic use , Registries , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sepsis/drug therapy , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/growth & development , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/mortality , Sepsis/virology , Spain/epidemiology , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The individual influence of a variety of comorbidities on COVID-19 patient outcomes has already been analyzed in previous works in an isolated way. We aim to determine if different associations of diseases influence the outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort multicenter study based on clinical practice. Data were taken from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, which includes most consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized and discharged in Spain. Two machine learning algorithms were applied in order to classify comorbidities and patients (Random Forest -RF algorithm, and Gaussian mixed model by clustering -GMM-). The primary endpoint was a composite of either, all-cause death or intensive care unit admission during the period of hospitalization. The sample was randomly divided into training and test sets to determine the most important comorbidities related to the primary endpoint, grow several clusters with these comorbidities based on discriminant analysis and GMM, and compare these clusters. RESULTS: A total of 16,455 inpatients (57.4% women and 42.6% men) were analyzed. According to the RF algorithm, the most important comorbidities were heart failure/atrial fibrillation (HF/AF), vascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases. There were six clusters: three included patients who met the primary endpoint (clusters 4, 5, and 6) and three included patients who did not (clusters 1, 2, and 3). Patients with HF/AF, vascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases were distributed among clusters 3, 4 and 5. Patients in cluster 5 also had kidney, liver, and acid peptic diseases as well as a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; it was the cluster with the worst prognosis. CONCLUSION: The interplay of several comorbidities may affect the outcome and complications of inpatients with COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Machine Learning , Male , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the concept of medicine. This work aims to analyze the use of antibiotics in patients admitted to the hospital due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This work analyzes the use and effectiveness of antibiotics in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry, an initiative to generate knowledge about this disease using data from electronic medical records. Our primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to antibiotic use. The secondary endpoint was the effect of macrolides on mortality. RESULTS: Of 13,932 patients, antibiotics were used in 12,238. The overall death rate was 20.7% and higher among those taking antibiotics (87.8%). Higher mortality was observed with use of all antibiotics (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62; p < .001) except macrolides, which had a higher survival rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.76; p < .001). The decision to start antibiotics was influenced by presence of increased inflammatory markers and any kind of infiltrate on an x-ray. Patients receiving antibiotics required respiratory support and were transferred to intensive care units more often. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial co-infection was uncommon among COVID-19 patients, yet use of antibiotics was high. There is insufficient evidence to support widespread use of empiric antibiotics in these patients. Most may not require empiric treatment and if they do, there is promising evidence regarding azithromycin as a potential COVID-19 treatment.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and validate a prediction model, based on clinical history and examination findings on initial diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to identify patients at risk of critical outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from 132 centres in Spain (23rd March to 21st May 2020). For the development cohort, tertiary referral hospitals were selected, while the validation cohort included smaller hospitals. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or admission to intensive care unit. Clinical signs and symptoms, demographics, and medical history ascertained at presentation were screened using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and logistic regression was used to construct the predictive model. RESULTS: There were 10 433 patients, 7850 in the development cohort (primary outcome 25.1%, 1967/7850) and 2583 in the validation cohort (outcome 27.0%, 698/2583). The PRIORITY model included: age, dependency, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, dyspnoea, tachypnoea, confusion, systolic blood pressure, and SpO2 ≤93% or oxygen requirement. The model showed high discrimination for critical illness in both the development (C-statistic 0.823; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813, 0.834) and validation (C-statistic 0.794; 95%CI 0.775, 0.813) cohorts. A freely available web-based calculator was developed based on this model (https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/2344). CONCLUSIONS: The PRIORITY model, based on easily obtained clinical information, had good discrimination and generalizability for identifying COVID-19 patients at risk of critical outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SpainABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Aged, 80 and over , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Advanced age is a well-known risk factor for poor prognosis in COVID-19. However, few studies have specifically focused on very old inpatients with COVID-19. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics of very old inpatients with COVID-19 and identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality at admission. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized with COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19) Registry (March 1-May 29, 2020). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A uni- and multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of mortality at admission. RESULTS: A total of 2772 consecutive patients (49.4% men, median age 86.3 years) were analyzed. Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, dementia, and Barthel Index < 60 were 30.8%, 25.6%, 30.5%, and 21.0%, respectively. The overall case-fatality rate was 46.9% (n: 1301) and increased with age (80-84 years: 41.6%; 85-90 years: 47.3%; 90-94 years: 52.7%; ≥95 years: 54.2%). After analysis, male sex and moderate-to-severe dependence were independently associated with in-hospital mortality; comorbidities were not predictive. At admission, independent risk factors for death were: oxygen saturation < 90%; temperature ≥ 37.8°C; quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score ≥ 2; and unilateral-bilateral infiltrates on chest x-rays. Some analytical findings were independent risk factors for death, including estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 500 U/L; C-reactive protein ≥ 80 mg/L; neutrophils ≥ 7.5 × 103/µL; lymphocytes < 0.8 × 103/µL; and monocytes < 0.5 × 103/µL. CONCLUSIONS: This first large, multicenter cohort of very old inpatients with COVID-19 shows that age, male sex, and poor preadmission functional status-not comorbidities-are independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Severe COVID-19 at admission is related to poor prognosis.