Association Between Diabetes and Mortality Among Adult Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Cohort Study of Hospitalized Adults in Ontario, Canada, and Copenhagen, Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of death among patients with COVID-19. However, the available studies lack detail on COVID-19 illness severity and measurement of relevant comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years of age and older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020, in Ontario, Canada, and Copenhagen, Denmark. Chart abstraction emphasizing comorbidities and disease severity was performed by trained research personnel. The association between diabetes and death was measured using Poisson regression. The main outcome measure was in-hospital 30-day risk of death. RESULTS: Our study included 1,133 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Ontario and 305 in Denmark, of whom 405 and 75 patients, respectively, had pre-existing diabetes. In both Ontario and Denmark, patients with diabetes were more likely to be older; have chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and higher troponin levels; and be receiving antibiotics, when compared with adults without diabetes. In Ontario, 24% (n=96) of adults with diabetes died compared with 15% (n=109) of adults without diabetes. In Denmark, 16% (n=12) of adults with diabetes died in hospital compared with 13% (n=29) of those without diabetes. In Ontario, the crude mortality ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 2.07) and in the adjusted regression model it was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.66). In Denmark, the crude mortality ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.27 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.36) and in the adjusted model it was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.54). Meta-analysis of the 2 rate ratios from each region resulted in a crude mortality ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.22 to 1.96) and an adjusted mortality ratio of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.47). CONCLUSION: The presence of diabetes was not strongly associated with in-hospital COVID-19 mortality independent of illness severity and other comorbidities.

The association between diabetes and mortality among adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Cohort Study of Hospitalized Adults in Ontario, Canada and Copenhagen, Denmark

Importance Diabetes has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of death among patients with COVID-19. However, available studies lack detail on COVID illness severity and measurement of relevant comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients over the age of 18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in Ontario, Canada and Copenhagen, Denmark. Chart ion emphasizing co-morbidities and disease severity was performed by trained research personnel. The association between diabetes and death was measured using Poissson regression. Main Outcomes and Measures Within hospital 30-day risk of death. Results Our study included 1133 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Ontario and 305 in Denmark, of whom 405 and 75 patients respectively had pre-existing diabetes. In both Ontario and Denmark, patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, have chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, higher troponin levels, and to receive antibiotics compared with adults who did not have diabetes. In Ontario, 24% (n=96) of adults with diabetes died compared with 15% (n=109) of adults without diabetes. In Denmark, 16% (n=12) of adults with diabetes died in hospital compared with 13% (n=29) among those without diabetes. In Ontario, the crude mortality rate ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.60 [1.24 – 2.07 95% CI] and in the adjusted regression model was 1.19 [0.86 – 1.66 95% CI]. In Denmark, the crude mortality rate ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.27 (0.68 – 2.36 95% CI) and in the adjusted model was 0.87 (0.49 – 1.54 95% CI)]. Meta-analysis of the two rate ratios from each region resulted in a crude mortality rate ratio of 1.55 (95% CI 1.22,1.96) and an adjusted mortality rate ratio of 1.11 (95% CI 0.84, 1.47). Conclusions Presence of diabetes was not strongly associated with in-hospital COVID mortality independent of illness severity and other comorbidities.

Pedestrian Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID pandemic provides a natural experiment examining how a 50-60% reduction in pedestrian activity might lead to a reduction in pedestrian deaths. We assessed whether the reduction in pedestrian deaths was proportional to a one-to-one matching presumed in statistics correlating mobility with fatality. The primary analysis examined New York (largest city in US), and the validation analysis examined Toronto (largest city in Canada). We identified pedestrian activity in each location from the Apple Mobility database, normalized to the baseline in January 2020. We calculated monthly pedestrian deaths from the Vision Zero database in each city with baseline data from 3 prior years. We found a large initial reduction in pedestrian deaths during the lockdown in New York that was transient and not statistically significant during the summer and autumn despite sustained reductions in pedestrian activity. Similarly, we found a large initial reduction in pedestrian deaths during the lockdown in Toronto that was transient and not sustained. Together, these data suggest the substantial reductions in pedestrian activity during the COVID pandemic have no simple correlation with pedestrian fatality counts in the same locations. An awareness of this finding emphasizes the role of unmeasured modifiable individual factors beyond pedestrian infrastructure or other structural contributors.

Effect of Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Oxygen Therapy on Critical Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals expanded critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic by treating COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in non-traditional settings, including general internal medicine (GIM) wards. The impact of this practice on intensive care unit (ICU) capacity is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe how our hospital operationalized the use of HFNC on GIM wards, assess its impact on ICU capacity, and examine the characteristics and outcomes of treated patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of all patients treated with HFNC on GIM wards at a Canadian tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted with COVID-19 and treated with HFNC on GIM wards from December 28, 2020, to June 13, 2021, were included. MAIN MEASURES: We combined administrative data on critical care occupancy daily with chart-abstracted data for included patients to establish the total number of patients receiving ICU-level care at our hospital per day. We also collected data on demographics, medical comorbidities, illness severity, COVID-19 treatments, HFNC care processes, and patient outcomes. KEY RESULTS: We treated 124 patients with HFNC on the GIM wards (median age 66 years; 48% female). Patients were treated with HFNC for a median of 5 days (IQR 3 to 8); collectively, they received HFNC for a total of 740 hospital days, 71% of which were on GIM wards. At peak ICU capacity strain (144%), delivering HFNC on GIM wards added 20% to overall ICU capacity by managing up to 14 patients per day. Patients required a median maximal fraction of inspired oxygen of 80% (IQR 60 to 95). There were 18 deaths (15%) and 85 patients (69%) required critical care admission; of those, 40 (47%) required mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate training and resources, treatment of COVID-19 patients with HFNC on GIM wards appears to be a feasible strategy to increase critical care capacity.

Variation in the risk of death due to COVID-19: An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether this is related to patient or hospital factors is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of mortality for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to determine whether the majority of that variation was explained by differences in patient characteristics across sites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 enrolled from 10 hospitals in Ontario, Canada and 8 hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark between January 1, 2020 and November 11, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Inpatient mortality. We used a multivariable multilevel regression model to compare the in-hospital mortality risk across hospitals and quantify the variation attributable to patient-level factors. RESULTS: There were 1364 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in Ontario (n = 1149) and in Denmark (n = 215). In Ontario, the absolute risk of in-hospital mortality ranged from 12.0% to 39.8% across hospitals. Ninety-eight percent of the variation in mortality in Ontario was explained by differences in the characteristics of the patients. In Denmark, the absolute risk of inpatients ranged from 13.8% to 20.6%. One hundred percent of the variation in mortality in Denmark was explained by differences in the characteristics of the inpatients. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in inpatient COVID-19 mortality across hospitals, which was largely explained by patient-level factors, such as age and severity of presenting illness. However, hospital-level factors that could have affected care, including resource availability and capacity, were not taken into account. These findings highlight potential limitations in comparing crude mortality rates across hospitals for the purposes of reporting on the quality of care.

Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxaemia due to covid-19: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial (COVID-PRONE).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. CONCLUSION: Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.

Good things come in threes (and sometimes fours): Update on renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and COVID-19: CMAJ

Quinn et al examine the role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Three large observational studies of more than 20,000 patients with COVID-19 found no association between the use of RAAS inhibitors and increased risk of infection, development of severe disease or death. The 3 studies used different methodological approaches, and all came to similar conclusions. A different cohort study of 18,472 patients who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also found no association between RAAS inhibitor use and testing positive for COVID-19. However, a secondary analysis of 1,735 patients in the study with confirmed COVID-19 showed an increased risk of severe disease requiring admission to the intensive care unit in patients using RAAS inhibitors. All observational studies are at risk of unmeasured confounding. However, according to the results across these studies, RAAS inhibitors are unlikely to cause harm in patients with COVID-19.