ABSTRACT
Background. Remdesivir (RDV) was approved by FDA in October 2020 for use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We examined the association between RDV treatment and ICU admission in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen (but not advanced respiratory support) in MN. Methods. COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) is population-based surveillance of hospitalized laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19. We analyzed COVID-NET cases ≥18 years hospitalized between Mar 23, 2020 and Jan 23, 2021 in MN for which medical record reviews were complete. On admission, included cases had evidence of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest imaging with oxygen saturation < 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen. Cases were excluded if treated with RDV after ICU admission. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between RDV treatment and ICU admission. Results. Complete records were available for 8,666 cases (36% of admissions statewide). 1,996 cases were included in the analysis, of which 908 were treated with RDV. 83% of cases were residents of the 7-county metro area of Minneapolis-St. Paul. Mean age was 59.7 years (IQR 48-72), 55% were male, and the mean RDV treatment duration was 4.8 days (range 2-15). The proportion of cardiovascular disease (30.6% vs 23.9%, p=.003), renal disease (16.6% vs 7.6%, p< .001), and diabetes (34.7% vs 29.5%, p=0.01) was higher in the RDV untreated group, while obesity (22.3% vs 8.4%, p< .001) and dexamethasone use (54.7% vs 15%, p< .001) was more common in the RDV treated group. RDV untreated patients were more likely to be admitted to an ICU (18% vs 8.9%, p< .001) and had higher inpatient mortality than those treated with RDV (11% vs 4.4%, p< .001). After adjustment for dexamethasone use, age, sex and diabetes, treatment with RDV was associated with 48% lower odds of ICU admission (OR 0.52, 0.39-0.7, p< .001). Conclusion. We found RDV treatment associated with a significantly lower risk of ICU admission in patients admitted to hospital requiring supplemental oxygen, suggesting that treatment may prevent disease progression in this group. Further studies should assess the potential benefit of RDV combination treatment with dexamethasone.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: More than 2.5 million people in Europe are diagnosed with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). IBD affects the quality of life, but also has important consequences for health systems. It remains unknown if variations in IBD care and education differs across Europe and to help address this question, we conducted this European Variation In IBD PracticE suRvey (VIPER) to study potential differences. Aims & Methods: This trainee-initiated survey, run through SurveyMonkey ®, consisted of 47 questions inquiring basic demographics, IBD training and clinical care. The survey was distributed through social media and national GI societies from December 2020 - January 2021. Results were compared according to GDP per capita, for which countries were divided into 2 groups (low/high income, according to the World Bank). Differences between groups were calculated using the chi2 statistic. Results: The online survey was completed by 1268 participants from 39 European countries. Most of the participants are specialists (65.3 %), followed by fellows in training (>/< 3 years, 19.1%, 15.6 %). Majority of the responders are working in academic institutions (50.4 %), others in public/ district hospitals (33.3 %) or private practices (16.3 %). Despite significant differences in access to IBD-specific training between high (56.4%) and low (38.5%) GDP countries (p<0.001), majority of clinicians feels comfortable in treating IBD (77.2% vs 72.0%, p=0.04). GDP was not a factor that dictated confidence in treating patients. IBD patients seen per week, IBD boards and especially IBD specific training were factors increasing confidence in managing IBD patients. Interestingly, a difference in availability of dedicated IBD units could be observed (58.5% vs 39.7%, p<0.001), as well as an inequality in multidisciplinary meetings (72.6% vs 40.2%, p<0.001), which often take place on a weekly basis (53.0%). In high GDP countries, IBD nurses are more common (86.2%) than in low GDP countries (36.0%, p<0.001), which is mirrored by differences in nurse-led IBD clinics (40.6% vs 13.8%, p<0.001). IBD dieticians (32.4% vs 16.6%) and psychologists (16.7% vs 7.5%) are mainly present in high GDP countries (p<0.001). In the current COVID era, telemedicine is available in 58.4% vs 21.4% of the high/low GDP countries respectively (p<0.001), as well as urgent flare clinics (58.6% vs 38.7%, p<0.001) and endoscopy within 24 hours if needed (83.0% vs 86.7% p=0.1). Treat-to-target approaches are implemented everywhere (85.0%), though access to biologicals and small molecules differs significantly. Almost all (94.7%) use faecal calprotectin for routine monitoring, whereas half also use intestinal ultrasound (47.9%). Conclusion: A lot of variability in IBD practice exists across Europe, with marked differences between high vs low GDP countries. Further work is required to help address some of these inequalities, aiming to improve and standardise IBD care across Europe.