Lung Ultrasound Findings Associated With COVID-19 ARDS, ICU Admission, and All-Cause Mortality.

BACKGROUND: As lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a diagnostic tool in patients with COVID-19, we sought to investigate the association between LUS findings and the composite in-hospital outcome of ARDS incidence, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-center, observational study, adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled from non-ICU in-patient units. Subjects underwent an LUS evaluating a total of 8 zones. Images were analyzed off-line, blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. A LUS score was developed to integrate LUS findings: ≥ 3 B-lines corresponded to a score of 1, confluent B-lines to a score of 2, and subpleural or lobar consolidation to a score of 3. The total LUS score ranged from 0-24 per subject. RESULTS: Among 215 enrolled subjects, 168 with LUS data and no current signs of ARDS or ICU admission (mean age 59 y, 56% male) were included. One hundred thirty-six (81%) subjects had pathologic LUS findings in ≥ 1 zone (≥ 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, or consolidations). Markers of disease severity at baseline were higher in subjects with the composite outcome (n = 31, 18%), including higher median C-reactive protein (90 mg/L vs 55, P < .001) and procalcitonin levels (0.35 µg/L vs 0.13, P = .033) and higher supplemental oxygen requirements (median 4 L/min vs 2, P = .001). However, LUS findings and score did not differ significantly between subjects with the composite outcome and those without, and were not associated with outcomes in unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic findings on LUS were common a median of 3 d after admission in this cohort of non-ICU hospitalized subjects with COVID-19 and did not differ among subjects who experienced the composite outcome of incident ARDS, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality compared to subjects who did not. These findings should be confirmed in future investigations. The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04377035).

Cardiac Characteristics of the First Two Waves of COVID-19 in Denmark and the Prognostic Value of Echocardiography: The ECHOVID-19 Study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread globally in waves, and Danish treatment guidelines have been updated following the first wave. We sought to investigate whether the prognostic values of echocardiographic parameters changed with updates in treatment guidelines and the emergence of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, 20E (EU1) and Alpha (B.1.1.7), and further to compare cardiac parameters between patients from the first and second wave. METHODS: A total of 305 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were prospectively included, 215 and 90 during the first and second wave, respectively. Treatment in the study was defined as treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, or both. Patients were assumed to be infected with the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant at the time of their hospitalisation. RESULTS: Mean age for the first vs. second wave was 68.7±13.6 vs. 69.7±15.8 years and 55% vs. 62% were male. Left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function was worse in patients hospitalised during the second wave (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) for first vs. second wave = 58.5±8.1% vs. 52.4±10.6%, p<0.001) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) = 16.4±4.3% vs. 14.2±4.3%, p<0.001). In univariable cox regressions, reduced LVEF (HR=1.07 per 1% decrease, p=0.002), GLS (HR=1.21 per 1% decrease, p<0.001), and TAPSE (HR=1.18 per 1mm decrease, p<0.001) were associated with covid-related mortality, but only GLS remained significant in fully adjusted analysis (HR=1.14, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Reduced GLS was associated with covid-related mortality independently of wave, treatment, and SARS-CoV-2 variant. LV function was significantly impaired in patients hospitalised during the second wave.

Myocardial Work in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Relation to Biomarkers, COVID-19 Severity, and All-Cause Mortality.

Background COVID-19 infection has been hypothesized to affect left ventricular function; however, the underlying mechanisms and the association to clinical outcome are not understood. The global work index (GWI) is a novel echocardiographic measure of systolic function that may offer insights on cardiac dysfunction in COVID-19. We hypothesized that GWI was associated with disease severity and all-cause death in patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results In a multicenter study of patients admitted with COVID-19 (n=305), 249 underwent pressure-strain loop analyses to quantify GWI at a median time of 4 days after admission. We examined the association of GWI to cardiac biomarkers (troponin and NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), disease severity (oxygen requirement and CRP [C-reactive protein]), and all-cause death. Patients with elevated troponin (n=71) exhibited significantly reduced GWI (1508 versus 1707 mm Hg%; P=0.018). A curvilinear association to NT-proBNP was observed, with increasing NT-proBNP once GWI decreased below 1446 mm Hg%. Moreover, GWI was significantly associated with a higher oxygen requirement (relative increase of 6% per 100-mm Hg% decrease). No association was observed with CRP. Of the 249 patients, 37 died during follow-up (median, 58 days). In multivariable Cox regression, GWI was associated with all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.01-1.15], per 100-mm Hg% decrease), but did not increase C-statistics when added to clinical parameters. Conclusions In patients admitted with COVID-19, our findings indicate that NT-proBNP and troponin may be associated with lower GWI, whereas CRP is not. GWI was independently associated with all-cause death, but did not provide prognostic information beyond readily available clinical parameters. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04377035.

Social Distancing in Relation to Severe Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Semi-Experimental Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Social distancing measures introduced on March 12, 2020, in Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic may affect non-COVID-19 admissions for severe acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (s-AECOPD). We compared rates of s-AECOPD in a nationwide, observational, semi-experimental cohort study using data from all Danish inhabitants between calendar week 1 through 25 in 2019 and 2020. In a sub-cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, we examined incidence of s-AECOPD, admissions to an intensive care unit, and all-cause mortality. A total of 3.0 million inhabitants aged ≥40 years, corresponding to 3.0 million person-years, were followed for s-AECOPD. In the social distancing period in 2020, there were 6,212 incidents of s-AECOPD, compared with 11,260 incidents in 2019, resulting in a 45% relative risk reduction. In the cohort with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 16,675), we observed a lower risk of s-AECOPD in the social distancing period (subdistribution hazard ratio (HR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33, 0.36; absolute risk: 25.4% in 2020 and 42.8% in 2019). The risk of admissions to an intensive care unit was reduced (subdistribution HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.87), as was all-cause mortality (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.90). Overall, the social distancing period was associated with a significant risk reduction for hospital admittance with s-AECOPD.

The Impact of Social Distancing in 2020 on Admission Rates for Exacerbations in Asthma: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing measures introduced during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic have reduced admission rates for various infectious and noninfectious respiratory diseases. We hypothesized that rates of asthma exacerbations would decline following the national lockdown in Denmark. OBJECTIVE: To determine weekly rates of in- and out-of-hospital asthma exacerbations before and during the social distancing intervention implemented on March 12, 2020. METHODS: All individuals older than 18 years with at least 1 outpatient hospital contact with asthma as the main diagnosis from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, were included. Weekly asthma exacerbation rates from January 1, 2018, to May 22, 2020, were calculated. An interrupted time-series model with the lockdown on March 12, 2020, as the point of interruption was used. RESULTS: A total of 38,225 patients with asthma were identified. The interrupted time-series model showed no immediate fall in exacerbation rates during the first week after March 12, 2020. However, there was a significant decline in weekly exacerbation rates in the following 10 weeks (change in trend for exacerbations requiring hospitalization: -0.75 [95% CI, -1.39 to -0.12]; P < .02 and in all asthma exacerbations: -12.2 [95% CI, -19.1 to -5.4; P < .001), amounting to a reduction of approximately 1 and 16.5 exacerbations per year per 100 patients in the cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the social distancing measures in Denmark did not lead to an immediate reduction in asthma exacerbation rates; however, a gradual decline in exacerbation rates during the following 10-week period was observed.

Lung ultrasound findings following COVID-19 hospitalization: A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a useful tool for diagnosis and monitoring in patients with active COVID-19-infection. However, less is known about the changes in LUS findings after a hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: In a prospective, longitudinal study in patients with COVID-19 enrolled from non-ICU hospital units, adult patients underwent 8-zone LUS and blood sampling both during the hospitalization and 2-3 months after discharge. LUS images were analyzed blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients with interpretable LUS at baseline and follow up (mean age 64 years, 61% male, 24% with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)) were included. The follow-up LUS was performed a median of 72 days after the initial LUS performed during hospitalization. At baseline, 87% had pathologic LUS findings in ≥1 zone (e.g. ≥3 B-lines, confluent B-lines or subpleural or lobar consolidation), whereas 30% had pathologic findings at follow-up (p < 0.001). The total number of B-lines and LUS score decreased significantly from hospitalization to follow-up (median 17 vs. 4, p < 0.001 and 4 vs. 0, p < 0.001, respectively). On the follow-up LUS, 28% of all patients had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone, whereas in those with ARDS during the baseline hospitalization (n = 17), 47% had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone. CONCLUSION: LUS findings improved significantly from hospitalization to follow-up 2-3 months after discharge in COVID-19 survivors. However, persistent B-lines were frequent at follow-up, especially among those who initially had ARDS. LUS seems to be a promising method to monitor COVID-19 lung changes over time. GOV ID: NCT04377035.

Hospital admission for COVID-19 pneumonitis - long-term impairment in quality of life and lung function.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Knowledge of long-term consequences of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis is of outmost importance. Our aim was, therefore, to assess the long-term impact on quality of life and lung function in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. METHODS: All patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonitis at Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Denmark, were invited to participate in the study 4-5 months after discharge. Of the 160 invited 128 responded positively (80%). Medical history and symptoms were assessed, and patients rated impact on quality of life and functional status with EuroQol-5D-5L and Post Covid Functional Scale. Lung function was assessed by dynamic spirometry and measurement of diffusing capacity. RESULTS: Fatigue, dyspnea, cough and cognitive dysfunction were the most common symptoms. Of 128 patients, 85% had at least one symptom, and 51% reported two or more symptoms. Self-rated Quality of life was impaired assessed by EuroQol 5D-5L, with dimensions 'Pain or discomfort' (61%) and 'Usual activities' (54%) mostly affected. Functional status was significantly worse than before COVID-19 assessed by Post-COVID Functional Scale. Among lung function parameters, diffusing capacity was most affected, with 45% having diffusing capacity < 80% of predicted. CONCLUSION: Fatigue, respiratory symptoms and cognitive symptoms are highly common months after hospitalization for severe COVID-19. Compared to pre-COVID-19, functional status and usual activities continued to be impaired. In line with this, almost half of the patients were found to have impaired diffusing capacity.

Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

PURPOSE: We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. METHODS: We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. CONCLUSION: We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.

Lung ultrasound findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in relation to venous thromboembolic events: the ECHOVID-19 study.

PURPOSE: Several studies have reported thromboembolic events to be common in severe COVID-19 cases. We sought to investigate the relationship between lung ultrasound (LUS) findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and the development of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). METHODS: A total of 203 adults were included from a COVID-19 ward in this prospective multi-center study (mean age 68.6 years, 56.7% men). All patients underwent 8-zone LUS, and all ultrasound images were analyzed off-line blinded. Several LUS findings were investigated (total number of B-lines, B-line score, and LUS-scores). RESULTS: Median time from admission to LUS examination was 4 days (IQR: 2, 8). The median number of B-lines was 12 (IQR: 8, 18), and 44 (21.7%) had a positive B-line score. During hospitalization, 17 patients developed VTE (4 deep-vein thrombosis, 15 pulmonary embolism), 12 following and 5 prior to LUS. In fully adjusted multivariable Cox models (excluding participants with VTE prior to LUS), all LUS parameters were significantly associated with VTE (total number of B-lines: HR = 1.14, 95% CI (1.03, 1.26) per 1 B-line increase), positive B-line score: HR = 9.79, 95% CI (1.87, 51.35), and LUS-score: HR = 1.51, 95% CI (1.10, 2.07), per 1-point increase). The B-line score and LUS-score remained significantly associated with VTE in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pathological LUS findings were common, and the total number of B-lines, B-line score, and LUS-score were all associated with VTE. These findings indicate that the LUS examination may be useful in risk stratification and the clinical management of COVID-19. These findings should be considered hypothesis generating. GOV ID: NCT04377035.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.

Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19: a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining the antibiotic azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine induces airway immunomodulatory effects, with the latter also having in vitro antiviral properties. This may improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Placebo-controlled double-blind randomised multicentre trial. Patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to hospital for ≤48 h (not intensive care) with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription PCR test were recruited. The intervention was 500 mg daily azithromycin for 3 days followed by 250 mg daily azithromycin for 12 days combined with 200 mg twice-daily hydroxychloroquine for all 15 days. The control group received placebo/placebo. The primary outcome was days alive and discharged from hospital within 14 days (DAOH14). RESULTS: After randomisation of 117 patients, at the first planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment due to futility, based on pre-specified criteria. Consequently, the trial was terminated on 1 February 2021. 61 patients received the combined intervention and 56 patients received placebo. In the intervention group, patients had a median (interquartile range) 9.0 (3-11) DAOH14 versus 9.0 (7-10) DAOH14 in the placebo group (p=0.90). The primary safety outcome, death from all causes on day 30, occurred for one patient in the intervention group versus two patients receiving placebo (p=0.52), and readmittance or death within 30 days occurred for nine patients in the intervention group versus six patients receiving placebo (p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine did not improve survival or length of hospitalisation in patients with COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine as a primary prophylactic agent against SARS-CoV-2 infection: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a primary prophylactic agent against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate if patients treated with hydroxychloroquine for a non-COVID-19 indication had a lower risk of verified infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with matched controls. METHODS: A cohort comprising all persons in Denmark collecting hydroxychloroquine prescriptions in 2020 and 2019 (i.e., both during and before SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in Denmark), matched by age and sex with controls, was studied. Data were collected using the Danish national registries, which contain complete information on patient health data, prescriptions and microbiological test results. The main outcome was microbiologically verified SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: In total, 5488 hydroxychloroquine users were matched with 54,486 non-users. At baseline, the groups differed in terms of diagnoses of pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, gastrointestinal/metabolic disease and dementia, as well as treatment with antirheumatic drugs. The final model was adjusted for these potential confounders. Use of hydroxychloroquine for non-COVID-19 indications was not associated with any change in confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.07). This result was robust in the propensity-score-matched sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This study, which is the largest to date to investigate the primary prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2, does not support any prophylactic benefit of hydroxychloroquine in the prevention of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

Echocardiographic abnormalities and predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: the ECHOVID-19 study.

AIMS: The present study had two aims: (i) compare echocardiographic parameters in COVID-19 patients with matched controls and (2) assess the prognostic value of measures of left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) function in relation to COVID-19 related death. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective multicentre cohort study, 214 consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients underwent an echocardiographic examination (by pre-determined research protocol). All participants were successfully matched 1:1 with controls from the general population on age, sex, and hypertension. Mean age of the study sample was 69 years, and 55% were male participants. LV and RV systolic function was significantly reduced in COVID-19 cases as assessed by global longitudinal strain (GLS) (16.4% ± 4.3 vs. 18.5% ± 3.0, P < 0.001), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (2.0 ± 0.4 vs. 2.6 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), and RV strain (19.8 ± 5.9 vs. 24.2 ± 6.5, P = 0.004). All parameters remained significantly reduced after adjusting for important cardiac risk factors. During follow-up (median: 40 days), 25 COVID-19 cases died. In multivariable Cox regression reduced TAPSE [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.07-1.31], P = 0.002, per 1 mm decrease], RV strain (HR = 1.64, 95%CI[1.02;2.66], P = 0.043, per 1% decrease) and GLS (HR = 1.20, 95%CI[1.07-1.35], P = 0.002, per 1% decrease) were significantly associated with COVID-19-related death. TAPSE and GLS remained significantly associated with the outcome after restricting the analysis to patients without prevalent heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: RV and LV function are significantly impaired in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared with matched controls. Furthermore, reduced TAPSE and GLS are independently associated with COVID-19-related death.

Proactive prophylaxis with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (ProPAC-COVID): a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for treatments that can shorten hospitalization and lower the risk of secondary infection and death in patients with corona disease. The ProPac-COVID trial evaluates whether combination therapy with macrolide azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine via anti-inflammation/immune modulation, antiviral efficacy, and pre-emptive treatment of supra-infections can shorten hospitalization duration and reduce the risk of non-invasive ventilation, treatment in the intensive care unit, and death in patients with acute hospital admission and a positive test for 2019-nCoV and symptoms of COVID-19 disease. METHODS: The ProPAC-COVID is a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. The primary outcome is number of days spent alive and out of hospital within 14 days from randomization. Randomization will be in blocks of unknown size, and the final allocation will be stratified for age, site of recruitment, and whether the patient has any chronic lung diseases. Data is analyzed using intention-to-treat (ITT) principles, and main analyses will also be subject to modified ITT analysis and per protocol analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary endpoints of the ProPAC-COVID study. Enrolment of patients to the ProPAC-COVID study is still ongoing. The purpose of this paper is to provide primary publication of study results to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04322396 . Registered on 26 March 2020.