Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalised adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: A randomised, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days. RESULTS: Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non-invasive respiratory or high-flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Impact on Sleep Quality, Mood, Anxiety, and Personal Satisfaction of Doctors Assigned to COVID-19 Units.

The SARS-CoV-2 health emergency has led to a restructuring of health care systems and the reassignment of medical specialists from their usual duties to attend COVID-19 patients. The aim of this paper is to describe the levels of insomnia, anxiety, depression, and the impact on quality of life of doctors who were on the frontline of COVID-19 during the first two waves of the pandemic. Self-report surveys were conducted on said physicians during both waves, with 83 and 61 responses in the first and second waves, respectively. The reported presence of insomnia was frequent (71.8%), although it decreased in the second survey. Anxiety was moderate, decreasing from 57.1% to 43.1% between measurements. Overall, depression rates decreased between the two surveys. Substance use was found to have an indirect correlation with personal and professional satisfaction. In the light of the unforeseeable evolution of the pandemic and the medium- to long-term repercussions on professionals, we believe the adaptation of health resources is crucial to meet the new unpredictable mental health needs of this group.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Urine by RT-LAMP: A Very Rare Finding.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is routinely performed in naso/oropharyngeal swabs samples from patients via RT-qPCR. The RT-LAMP technology has also been used for viral RNA detection in respiratory specimens with both high sensitivity and specificity. Recently, we developed a novel RT-LAMP test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in nasopharyngeal swab specimens (named, N15-RT-LAMP) that can be performed as a single-tube colorimetric method, in a real-time platform, and as dry-LAMP. To date, there has been very little success in detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine by RT-qPCR, and the information regarding urine viral excretion is still scarce and not comprehensive. Here, we tested our N15-RT-LAMP on the urine of 300 patients admitted to the Hospital of Salamanca, Spain with clinical suspicion of COVID-19, who had a nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR-positive (n = 100), negative (n = 100), and positive with disease recovery (n = 100) result. The positive group was also tested by RT-qPCR for comparison to N15-RT-LAMP. Only a 4% positivity rate was found in the positive group via colorimetric N15-RT-LAMP and 2% via RT-qPCR. Our results are consistent with those obtained in other studies that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine is a very rare finding. The absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine in the recovered patients might suggest that the urinary route is very rarely used for viral particle clearance.

Date of Admission during COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Patient Outcomes in Addition to the Higher Efficacy of Tocilizumab Plus High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy Compared to Tocilizumab Alone.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400-600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm. RESULTS: An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies.

Implementation of a Ventilation Protocol for SARS-CoV-2 in a Higher Educational Centre

The most recent research confirms that airborne transmission may be the dominant mode of SARS-CoV-2 virus spread in the interior spaces of buildings. Consequently, based on some prescriptions that implemented natural ventilation during face-to-face lessons in a university centre, an experimental characterization of several complementary options aimed at reinforcing the prevention and safety of the occupants was carried out. The action protocol adopted was based on the combination of mandatory natural ventilation, a maximum contribution of outdoor air supply in the air conditioning system, and the use of filtering devices located inside the classroom. All the strategies were incorporated concomitantly with necessary compliance with the basic conditions of social distance, occupation, use of masks and guidelines for use and cleaning within educational buildings. The suitability of this protocol was further evaluated throughout the teaching day with students and teachers by measuring the CO2 concentration. The results showed that the measures implemented successfully removed the possible pollutants generated inside.

Low molecular weight heparin is useful in adult COVID-19 inpatients. Experience during the first Spanish wave: observational study.

BACKGROUND: The intensity of the thromboprophylaxis needed as a potential factor for preventing inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between anticoagulation intensity and COVID-19 survival. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain. METHODS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) status was ascertained based on prescription at admission. To control for immortal time bias, anticoagulant use was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: 690 patients were included (median age, 72 years). LMWH was administered to 615 patients, starting from hospital admission (89.1%). 410 (66.7%) received prophylactic-dose LMWH; 120 (19.5%), therapeutic-dose LMWH; and another 85 (13.8%) who presented respiratory failure, high D-dimer levels (> 3 mg/l) and non-worsening of inflammation markers received prophylaxis of intermediate-dose LMWH. The overall inpatient-mortality rate was 38.5%. The anticoagulant nonuser group presented higher mortality risk than each of the following groups: any LMWH users (HR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.40-3.15); the prophylactic-dose heparin group (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57-3.64); and the users of heparin dose according to biomarkers (HR 6.52; 95% CI, 2.95-14.41). 3.4% of the patients experienced major hemorrhage. 2.8% of the patients developed an episode of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study showed that LMWH administered at the time of admission was associated with lower mortality among unselected adult COVID-19 inpatients. The magnitude of the benefit may have been greatest for the intermediate-dose subgroup. Randomized controlled trials to assess the benefit of heparin within different therapeutic regimes for COVID-19 patients are required.

Indoor Air Quality in Naturally Ventilated Classrooms. Lessons Learned from a Case Study in a COVID-19 Scenario

This paper describes the implementation of a series of ventilation strategies in a nursery and primary school from September 2020, when the government decided to resume the students’ face-to-face activity in the middle of a COVID scenario. Air quality and hygrothermal comfort conditions were analysed before the pandemic and compared for different ventilation configurations in a post-COVID scenario. Ventilation strategies included the protocols issued by the Public Administration, while others were developed based on the typological configuration and use of the school. Results revealed that it is advisable to implement certain strategies that reduce the risk of infection among the occupants of the spaces, without a significant decrease in hygrothermal comfort. Given the importance of maintaining better IAQ in the future within classrooms, and regarding the pre-COVID situation, these strategies may be extended beyond this pandemic period, through a simple protocol and necessary didactic package to be assumed by both teachers and students of the centre.

Development of a severity of disease score and classification model by machine learning for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Efficient and early triage of hospitalized Covid-19 patients to detect those with higher risk of severe disease is essential for appropriate case management. METHODS: We trained, validated, and externally tested a machine-learning model to early identify patients who will die or require mechanical ventilation during hospitalization from clinical and laboratory features obtained at admission. A development cohort with 918 Covid-19 patients was used for training and internal validation, and 352 patients from another hospital were used for external testing. Performance of the model was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 363 of 918 (39.5%) and 128 of 352 (36.4%) Covid-19 patients from the development and external testing cohort, respectively, required mechanical ventilation or died during hospitalization. In the development cohort, the model obtained an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.87) for predicting severity of disease progression. Variables ranked according to their contribution to the model were the peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, updated Charlson comorbidity index and lymphocytes. In the external testing cohort, the model performed an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85). This model is deployed in an open source calculator, in which Covid-19 patients at admission are individually stratified as being at high or non-high risk for severe disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: This machine-learning model, applied at hospital admission, predicts risk of severe disease progression in Covid-19 patients.

Corticosteroid Pulses for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Effects on Mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of corticosteroid pulses on 60-day mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We designed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in three teaching hospitals of Castilla y León, Spain (865,096 people). We selected patients with confirmed COVID-19 and lung involvement with a pO2/FiO2<300, excluding those exposed to immunosuppressors before or during hospitalization, patients terminally ill at admission, or those who died in the first 24 hours. We performed a propensity score matching (PSM) adjusting covariates that modify the probability of being treated. Then, we used a Cox regression model in the PSM group to consider factors affecting mortality. RESULTS: From 2933 patients, 257 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 124 patients were on corticosteroid pulses (250 mg of methylprednisolone for three days), and 133 were not. 30.3% (37/122) of patients died in the corticosteroid pulse group and 42.9% (57/133) in the nonexposed cohort. These differences (12.6%, 95% CI [8·54-16.65]) were statically significant (log-rank 4.72, p = 0, 03). We performed PSM using the exact method. Mortality differences remained in the PSM group (log-rank 5.31, p = 0.021) and were still significant after a Cox regression model (HR for corticosteroid pulses 0.561; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence about treatment with corticosteroid pulses in severe COVID-19 that might significantly reduce mortality. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with that selection process set a reliable frame to compare mortality in both the exposed and nonexposed groups.