Italian good practice recommendations on management of persons with Long-COVID.

A significant number of people, following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, report persistent symptoms or new symptoms that are sustained over time, often affecting different body systems. This condition, commonly referred to as Long-COVID, requires a complex clinical management. In Italy new health facilities specifically dedicated to the diagnosis and care of Long-COVID were implemented. However, the activity of these clinical centers is highly heterogeneous, with wide variation in the type of services provided, specialistic expertise and, ultimately, in the clinical care provided. Recommendations for a uniform management of Long-COVID were therefore needed. Professionals from different disciplines (including general practitioners, specialists in respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, internal medicine, geriatrics, cardiology, neurology, pediatrics, and odontostomatology) were invited to participate, together with a patient representative, in a multidisciplinary Panel appointed to draft Good Practices on clinical management of Long-COVID. The Panel, after extensive literature review, issued recommendations on 3 thematic areas: access to Long-COVID services, clinical evaluation, and organization of the services. The Panel highlighted the importance of providing integrated multidisciplinary care in the management of patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and agreed that a multidisciplinary service, one-stop clinic approach could avoid multiple referrals and reduce the number of appointments. In areas where multidisciplinary services are not available, services may be provided through integrated and coordinated primary, community, rehabilitation and mental health services. Management should be adapted according to the patient's needs and should promptly address possible life-threatening complications. The present recommendations could provide guidance and support in standardizing the care provided to Long-COVID patients.

Predictive Value of Echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio for In-Hospital Death in Patients with COVID-19.

Background: Echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio (ePLAR) represents an accurate and sensitive non-invasive tool to estimate the trans-pulmonary gradient. The prognostic value of ePLAR in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the predictive value of ePLAR on in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients admitted to two Italian institutions for COVID-19 undergoing early (<24 h) echocardiographic examination were included; ePLAR was determined from the maximum tricuspid regurgitation continuous wave Doppler velocity (m/s) divided by the transmitral E-wave: septal mitral annular Doppler Tissue Imaging e'-wave ratio (TRVmax/E:e'). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital death. Results: patients who died during hospitalization had at baseline a higher prevalence of tricuspid regurgitation, higher ePLAR, right-side pressures, lower Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE)/ systolic Pulmonary Artery Pressure (sPAP) ratio and reduced inferior vena cava collapse than survivors. Patients with ePLAR > 0.28 m/s at baseline showed non-significant but markedly increased in-hospital mortality compared to those having ePLAR ≤ 0.28 m/s (27% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.055). Multivariate Cox regression showed that an ePLAR > 0.28 m/s was independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 5.07, 95% CI 1.04−24.50, p = 0.043), particularly when associated with increased sPAP (p for interaction = 0.043). Conclusions: A high ePLAR value at baseline predicts in-hospital death in patients with COVID-19, especially in those with elevated pulmonary arterial pressure. These results support an early ePLAR assessment in patients admitted for COVID-19 to identify those at higher risk and potentially guide strategies of diagnosis and care.

Predictors of Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcome at 6 Months after Hospitalization for COVID-19.

Clinical outcome data of patients discharged after Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited and no study has evaluated predictors of cardiovascular prognosis in this setting. Our aim was to assess short-term mortality and cardiovascular outcome after hospitalization for COVID-19. A prospective cohort of 296 consecutive patients discharged after COVID-19 from two Italian institutions during the first wave of the pandemic and followed up to 6 months was included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The co-primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite outcome of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, acute heart failure, or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes). The mean follow-up duration was 6 ± 2 months. The incidence of all-cause death was 4.7%. At multivariate analysis, age was the only independent predictor of mortality (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16). MACCE occurred in 7.2% of patients. After adjustment, female sex (aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.05-6.52), in-hospital acute heart failure during index hospitalization (aHR 3.45, 95% CI 1.19-10), and prevalent atrial fibrillation (aHR 3.05, 95% CI 1.13-8.24) significantly predicted the incident risk of MACCE. These findings may help to identify patients for whom a closer and more accurate surveillance after discharge for COVID-19 should be considered.

The Standard of Care Definitions on COVID-19 Pharmacological Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.

The 2008 Financial Crisis and Changes in Lifestyle-Related Behaviors in Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal: A Systematic Review.

Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal have all been strongly affected by the 2008 financial crisis, which has had a negative impact on health. We systematically evaluated the effects of the crisis on lifestyle and socioeconomic inequalities. We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and health economics databases for studies reporting quantitative comparisons before and after (or during) the crisis on the following risk behaviors: alcohol consumption, smoking habit, healthy diet, physical activity, and psychotropic drugs and substance abuse, without setting any age restrictions. We selected 34 original articles published between 2011 and 2020. During/after the crisis, alcohol consumption and substance abuse decreased, while psychotropic drug use increased. We also observed a deterioration in healthy eating behavior, with a reduction in fruit and vegetable consumption. Smoking habit and physical activity showed a more complex, controversial trend. Socioeconomic inequalities were affected by the recession, and the negative effects on unhealthy lifestyle tended to be more pronounced among the disadvantaged. These results suggest the need to implement health policies and interventions aimed at monitoring risk behaviors, with special regard to disadvantaged people, and considering the potential additional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Simple Parameters from Complete Blood Count Predict In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients (F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded. RESULTS: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) (χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio (χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count (χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age (χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/µL was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63)). CONCLUSION: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment.

[The praise of uncertainty: a systematic living review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for patients with covid-19.] / L'elogio dell'incertezza: una revisione sistematica living per valutare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei trattamenti farmacologici per pazienti affetti da covid-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.

Respiratory and Psychophysical Sequelae Among Patients With COVID-19 Four Months After Hospital Discharge.

Importance: Although plenty of data exist regarding clinical manifestations, course, case fatality rate, and risk factors associated with mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), long-term respiratory and functional sequelae in survivors of COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of lung function anomalies, exercise function impairment, and psychological sequelae among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 4 months after discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study at an academic hospital in Northern Italy was conducted among a consecutive series of patients aged 18 years and older (or their caregivers) who had received a confirmed diagnosis of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection severe enough to require hospital admission from March 1 to June 29, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing, bronchial swab, serological testing, or suggestive computed tomography results. Exposure: Severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was to describe the proportion of patients with a diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (Dlco) less than 80% of expected value. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients with severe lung function impairment (defined as Dlco <60% expected value); proportion of patients with posttraumatic stress symptoms (measured using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised total score); proportion of patients with functional impairment (assessed using the Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB] score and 2-minute walking test); and identification of factors associated with Dlco reduction and psychological or functional sequelae. Results: Among 767 patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19, 494 (64.4%) refused to participate, and 35 (4.6%) died during follow-up. A total of 238 patients (31.0%) (median [interquartile range] age, 61 [50-71] years; 142 [59.7%] men; median [interquartile range] comorbidities, 2 [1-3]) consented to participate to the study. Of these, 219 patients were able to complete both pulmonary function tests and Dlco measurement. Dlco was reduced to less than 80% of the estimated value in 113 patients (51.6%) and less than 60% in 34 patients (15.5%). The SPPB score was suggested limited mobility (score <11) in 53 patients (22.3%). Patients with SPPB scores within reference range underwent a 2-minute walk test, which was outside reference ranges of expected performance for age and sex in 75 patients (40.5%); thus, a total of 128 patients (53.8%) had functional impairment. Posttraumatic stress symptoms were reported in a total of 41 patients (17.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that at 4 months after discharge, respiratory, physical, and psychological sequelae were common among patients who had been hospitalized for COVID-19.

Fatality rate and predictors of mortality in an Italian cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.