Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 37
Filter
1.
Rev Esp Cardiol ; 74(7): 608-615, 2021 Jul.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1805063

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P = .021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P = .002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P = .005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

2.
J Cell Mol Med ; 2022 Mar 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1769729

ABSTRACT

Although numerous patient-specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalassaemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood. We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT) and transfusion independent thalassaemia (TIT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalassaemia. The mean age of thalassaemia patients included in our study was 41 ± 16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 40% of thalassaemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassaemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassaemia. Amongst thalassaemia patients in general, the TIT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p = 0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the TIT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassaemia (either TDT or TIT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The presence of thalassaemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309933

ABSTRACT

Background: Although numerous patient specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalasemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood.Aims: We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of Transfusion Dependent Thalassemia (TDT) and non-Transfusion Dependent Thalassemia (NTDT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalasemia.Results: The mean age of thalassemia patients included in our study was 41±16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 25% of thalassemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to the an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassemia. Amongst thalassemia patients in general, the NTDT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p=0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the NTDT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassemia (either TDT or NTDT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality.Conclusions: The presence of thalassemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.Trial Registration for sources of data extraction: NCT: 04334291, 04746066Funding Statement: This study was funded by a non-conditioned grant from FUNDACIÓN INTERHOSPITALARIA PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN CARDIOVASCULAR, FIC. (Madrid, Spain). This nonprofit institution had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the Ethics Committees in all of the centers involved (Banjarmasin, Bari, Cagliari, Catania, Ferrara, Gela, Genoa, Getafe, Guadalajara, Legan, Madrid, Mannheim, Milan, Monza, Naples, Olbia, Padua, Pavia, Ragusa, Rome, Salerno, Turin, Valladolid and Verona).

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319260

ABSTRACT

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19.These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291).There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p=0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p=0.484), liver (p=0.1) or immune disease (p=0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (<0.0001), but no with ICU (0.165) or mechanical ventilation (0.292). On univariable logistic regression OGD was found to be inversely related to death in COVID-19 patients. The Odds Ratio was 0.26 (0.15-0.44) (p<0.001) and Z was -5.05.The presence of anosmia is fundamental in the diagnosis of SARS.CoV-2 infection, but also could be important when classifying patients and in therapeutic decisions. Even more knowing that it is an early symptom of the disease. Knowing that other situations as being Afro-American or Latino-American, Hypertension, renal insufficiency, or increase of C-reactive protein (CRP) imply a worse prognosis we can make a clinical score to estimate the vital prognosis of the patient.The exact pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 that causes olfactory and gustative disorders remains unknown but seems related to the prognosis. This point is fundamental, insomuch as could be a plausible way to find a treatment.

6.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S369-S370, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564696

ABSTRACT

Background There are few real-world data on the use of remdesivir (RDV) looking at timing of initiation in relation to symptom onset and severity of presenting disease. Methods We conducted multi-country retrospective study of clinical practice and use of RDV in COVID-19 patients. De-identified medical records data were entered into an e-CRF. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalization duration. We assessed time from symptom onset to RDV start and re-admission. We included adults with PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 who were hospitalized after Aug 31, 2020 and received at least 1 dose of RDV. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the mortality rate, LogRank test to compare groups defined by severity of disease. Competing risk regression with discharge and death as competing events was used to estimate duration of hospitalization, and Gray’s test to compare the groups. Results 448 patients in 5 countries (12 sites) were included. Demographics are summarized (table) by 3 disease severity groups at baseline: no supplemental oxygen (NSO), low flow oxygen ≤6 L/min (LFO), and high-flow oxygen > 6L/min (HFO). No demographic differences were found between groups except for the higher percentage of cancer/chemotherapy patients in NSO group. Corticosteroids use was HFO 73.6%, LFO 62.7%, NSO 58.0%. Mortality rate was significantly lower in NSO, and LFO groups compared with HFO (6.2%, 10.2%, 23.6%, respectively;Fig1). Median duration of hospitalization was 9 (95%CI 8-10), 9 (8-9), 13 (10-15) days, respectively (Fig2). Median time from first symptom to RDV start was 7 days in all 3 groups. Patients started RDV on day 1 of hospitalization in HFO and LFO and day 2 on NSO groups. And received a 5 day course (median). Readmission within 28-days of discharge was < 5% and similar across all 3 groups. Table 1. Patients baseline characteristics and primary and secondary outcomes Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality Figure 2. Competing-risks regression of discharge from hospital Conclusion In this real-world cohort of COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients, RDV use was consistent across countries. RDV was started within a median of 7 days from symptom within 2 days of admission and given for a median of 5 days. Higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalization was seen in the HFO group and similar rates seen in the LFO and NSO groups. Readmission was consistently low across all 3 groups. Disclosures François Raffi, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Consultant)MSD (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Consultant)Theratechnologies (Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Nadir Arber, MD, MSc, MHA, Check cap (Consultant)Coved cd 24 (Board Member)Israel Innovation Authority (Research Grant or Support)Nucleix (Advisor or Review Panel member)Zion Pharmaceuticals (Advisor or Review Panel member) Casper Rokx, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Ameet Bakhai, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FESC, Bayer AG (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Boehringer Ingelheim (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Daiichi-Sankyo Europe (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Johnson & Johnson (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Roche (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Sanofi (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor) Alex Soriano, MD, Angelini (Speaker's Bureau)Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Menarini (Speaker's Bureau)MSD (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Shionogi (Speaker's Bureau) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support)MSD (Consultant) Vicente Estrada, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Theratechnologies (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant) Adrian Curran, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)MSD (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anton Pozniak, MD, FRCP, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)Theratec (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)

7.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295408

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background The efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC) in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 is unknown. Methods In this phase 3, global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421027 ). Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving SOC were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily baricitinib 4-mg or placebo for up to 14 days. SOC included systemic corticosteroids in 79·3% of participants (dexamethasone ∼90%). The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28. All-cause mortality by days 28 and 60 were key secondary and exploratory endpoints, respectively. Efficacy and safety analyses included the intent-to-treat and safety populations, respectively. Findings Between June 11, 2020 and January 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to baricitinib 4-mg (n=764) or matched placebo (n=761). Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib vs 30·5% receiving placebo progressed (primary endpoint, odds ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·67-1·08;p=0·18). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8·1% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13·1% (n=100) for placebo, corresponding to a 38·2% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78;nominal p=0·0018). The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10·3% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15·2% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·47-0·83;p=0·0050). Frequency of serious adverse events (14·7% [n=110] vs 18·0% [n=135]), serious infections (8·5% [n=64] vs 9·8% [n=74]), and venous thromboembolic events (2·7% [n=20] vs 2·5% [n=19]) was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. Interpretation While reduction of disease progression did not achieve statistical significance, treatment with baricitinib in addition to SOC (including dexamethasone) significantly reduced mortality, with a similar safety profile to SOC, in hospitalised COVID-19 participants. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Research in context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “treatment”, “baricitinib” and “JAK inhibitor” for articles in English published up to April 31, 2020, regardless of article type. We considered previous and current clinical trials of investigational medications in COVID-19, as well as previous clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, baricitinib, before undertaking this study. At the time the COV-BARRIER study was designed, there were no approved therapies for the treatment of COVID-19. Management of COVID-19 was supportive, and limited phase 3 randomised placebo-controlled studies had been completed. Limited phase 2 and 3 data on the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine and protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir were available, and trials investigating the use of the antiviral remdesivir were ongoing. Baricitinib’s mechanism of action as a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor was identified as a potential intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 given its known anti-cytokine properties and potential for targeting host proteins for its antiviral mechanism. Additionally, early case series evaluating the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in the hospitalised patient population supported further evaluation of baricitinib as a potential treatment option for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. While COV-BARRIER was enrolling, ACTT-2, a phase 3 study evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir was completed showing that baricitinib added to remdesivir improved time to recovery and other outcomes. Added value of this study This was the first phase 3 study to evaluate baricitinib in addition to the current standard of care (SOC) and included antivirals, anticoagulants, and cort costeroids. After the earliest publication of the RECOVERY study in June 2020, the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 changed with the adoption of dexamethasone as SOC. As a result of its design, COV-BARRIER became the first trial to evaluate the benefit/risk of baricitinib when added to the most current SOC (dexamethasone) in these patients. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted globally in regions with high COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. The reduction in the composite primary endpoint of progression to non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death for baricitinib plus SOC (including dexamethasone) compared to placebo plus SOC did not reach statistical significance. However, in a pre-specified key secondary endpoint, treatment with baricitinib reduced 28-day all-cause mortality by 38·2% compared to placebo (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78;nominal p=0·0018);one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The reduction of all-cause mortality with baricitinib was maintained by day 60 in an exploratory analysis. The frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, and venous thromboembolic events was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. Implications of all the available evidence In this phase 3 trial, baricitinib given in addition to SOC (which predominantly included dexamethasone) did not reduce a composite endpoint of disease progression, but showed a strong effect on reducing mortality by 28 days, an effect which was maintained by 60 days. In the ACTT-2 study, baricitinib further reduced time to recovery above the background use of remdesivir. Taken together, these findings suggest that baricitinib has synergistic effects to other SOC treatment modalities including remdesivir and dexamethasone. Based on all available evidence, baricitinib is a potentially effective oral treatment option to decrease mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

8.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1407-1418, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545515

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Azetidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Adult , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents , Asia , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone , Double-Blind Method , Europe , Humans , North America , SARS-CoV-2 , South America , Treatment Outcome
9.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 728102, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502328

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

10.
Int J Cardiol ; 345: 153-155, 2021 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1474609

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endothelial dysfunction is one of the underlying mechanisms to vascular and cardiac complications in patients with COVID-19. We sought to investigate the systemic vascular endothelial function and its temporal changes in COVID-19 patients from a non-invasive approach with reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, case-control and blinded study. The population was comprised by 3 groups: patients investigated during acute COVID-19 (group 1), patients investigated during past COVID-19 (group 2), and controls 1:1 matched to COVID-19 patients by demographics and cardiovascular risk factors (group 3). The natural logarithmic scaled reactive hyperemia index (LnRHI), a measure of endothelium-mediated dilation of peripheral arteries, was obtained in all the participants and compared between study groups. RESULTS: 144 participants were enrolled (72 COVID-19 patients and 72 matched controls). Median time from COVID-19 symptoms to PAT assessment was 9.5 and 101.5 days in groups 1 and 2, respectively. LnRHI was significantly lower in group 2 compared to both group 1 and controls (0.53 ± 0.23 group 2 vs. 0.72 ± 0.26 group 1, p = 0.0043; and 0.79 ± 0.23 in group 3, p < 0.0001). In addition, within group 1, it was observed a markedly decrease in LnRHI from acute COVID-19 to post infection stage (0.73 ± 0.23 vs. 0.42 ± 0.26, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a deleterious effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on systemic vascular endothelial function. These findings open new venues to investigate the clinical implication and prognostic role of vascular endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19 patients and post-COVID syndrome using non-invasive techniques.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hyperemia , Vascular Diseases , Endothelium, Vascular , Humans , Manometry , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(2): 273-278, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1446537

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. RESULTS: Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p < 0.001 for both). On admission, respiratory insufficiency and cough were described in 51.4% (114/222) and 76% (170/223) of patients, respectively, in the combined event group, versus 7.9% (42/533) and 56% (302/543) of patients in the other group (p < 0.001 for both). The strongest independent predictor for the combined end point was desaturation (Spo2 <92%) (OR 5.40; 95% CI 3.34-8.75; p < 0.001), followed by tachypnoea (OR 3.17; 95% CI 1.93-5.21; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.96-4.61; p < 0.001) and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray at admission (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.18-4.16; p 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Aged , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(11): e13582, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365071

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Sepsis/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/therapy , Creatinine/metabolism , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Italy/epidemiology , L-Lactate Dehydrogenase/metabolism , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation , Proportional Hazards Models , Registries , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Spain/epidemiology
13.
BMJ Nutr Prev Health ; 4(1): 285-292, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282094

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Smoking has been associated with poorer outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Smokers have higher risk of mortality and have a more severe clinical course. There is paucity of data available on this issue, and a definitive link between smoking and COVID-19 prognosis has yet to be established. METHODS: We included 5224 patients with COVID-19 with an available smoking history in a multicentre international registry Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19 (NCT04334291). Patients were included following an in-hospital admission with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We analysed the outcomes of patients with a current or prior history of smoking compared with the non-smoking group. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. RESULTS: Finally, 5224 patients with COVID-19 with available smoking status were analysed. A total of 3983 (67.9%) patients were non-smokers, 934 (15.9%) were former smokers and 307 (5.2%) were active smokers. The median age was 66 years (IQR 52.0-77.0) and 58.6% were male. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (48.5%) and dyslipidaemia (33.0%). A relevant lung disease was present in 19.4%. In-hospital complications such sepsis (23.6%) and embolic events (4.3%) occurred more frequently in the smoker group (p<0.001 for both). All cause-death was higher among smokers (active or former smokers) compared with non-smokers (27.6 vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Following a multivariate analysis, current smoking was considered as an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.82, p=0.017) and a combined endpoint of severe disease (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Smoking has a negative prognostic impact on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

14.
J Hosp Med ; 16(6): 349-352, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270268

ABSTRACT

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Hospitalization , Sex Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Disease Progression , Female , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
15.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): 2035-2041, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249280

ABSTRACT

WHO convened an Advisory Group (AG) to consider the feasibility, potential value, and limitations of establishing a closely-monitored challenge model of experimental severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthy adult volunteers. The AG included experts in design, establishment, and performance of challenges. This report summarizes issues that render a COVID-19 model daunting to establish (the potential of SARS-CoV-2 to cause severe/fatal illness, its high transmissibility, and lack of a "rescue treatment" to prevent progression from mild/moderate to severe clinical illness) and it proffers prudent strategies for stepwise model development, challenge virus selection, guidelines for manufacturing challenge doses, and ways to contain SARS-CoV-2 and prevent transmission to household/community contacts. A COVID-19 model could demonstrate protection against virus shedding and/or illness induced by prior SARS-CoV-2 challenge or vaccination. A limitation of the model is that vaccine efficacy in experimentally challenged healthy young adults cannot per se be extrapolated to predict efficacy in elderly/high-risk adults.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Virus Shedding , World Health Organization , Young Adult
16.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): e624-e633, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191503

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Registries , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Correlation of Data , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Risk , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome
17.
Am Heart J ; 237: 104-115, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1179196

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Female , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/etiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Prognosis , Registries , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Spain/epidemiology
18.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(4)2021 Apr 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1178131

ABSTRACT

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for a timely update of health policies and allocation of resources. Particularly, serological testing may allow individuals with low-risk of being contagious of SARS-CoV-2 to return to daily activities. Both private and academic initiatives have sought to develop serological assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Herein, we compared five different assays in active healthcare personnel exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in a large center in Madrid, Spain, in a retrospective study. Median time lapse between polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) and serological testing was 11 days (7-21). All tests assessed IgM/IgG titers except for Euroimmun (IgA/IgG) and The Binding-Site (IgA/IgM/IgG). The highest concordance rate was observed between Dia.Pro and Euroimmun (75.76%), while it was lowest between The Binding-Site and Euroimmun (44.55%). The Binding-Site assay showed the highest concordance (85.52%) with PCR results. Considering PCR results as reference, Dia.Pro was the most sensitive test, although The Binding-Site assay exhibited the highest area under the curve (AUC; 0.85). OrientGene and MAGLUMI tests were performed in a smaller cohort with confirmed infection and thus were not adequate to estimate sensitivity and specificity. The Binding-Site assay presented the best joint sensitivity and specificity among all the tests analyzed in our cohort. Likewise, this serological assay presents a greater repertoire of antibodies and antigen-regions tested, which is why each individual's humoral immunity is more accurately reflected. The better the immunity test, the most adequate the health strategy to take in terms of organization of consultations, surgery, and treatments in vulnerable patients. The three antibody classes (IgG/IgM/IgA) were determined jointly, which translates to an economic impact on healthcare. While their role in the protection status remains elusive, serological tests add a valuable tool in the early management of SARS-CoV-2 after known exposition.

19.
Emerg Med J ; 38(5): 359-365, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1138369

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: We conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated. RESULTS: 1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p<0.001), hypertension (adj(OR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.61, p=0.03), room air O2 saturation <92% at presentation (adj(OR) 3.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 7.28, p=0.01), lymphocytopenia (adj(OR) 3.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.85, p=0.03) and in-hospital use of antibiotic therapy (adj(OR) 4.91, 95% CI 1.69 to 14.26, p=0.003) were independently associated with the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: NIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Registries , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Health Care Manag Sci ; 24(2): 339-355, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1130838

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an international effort to develop and repurpose medications and procedures to effectively combat the disease. Several groups have focused on the potential treatment utility of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertensive COVID-19 patients, with inconclusive evidence thus far. We couple electronic medical record (EMR) and registry data of 3,643 patients from Spain, Italy, Germany, Ecuador, and the US with a machine learning framework to personalize the prescription of ACEIs and ARBs to hypertensive COVID-19 patients. Our approach leverages clinical and demographic information to identify hospitalized individuals whose probability of mortality or morbidity can decrease by prescribing this class of drugs. In particular, the algorithm proposes increasing ACEI/ARBs prescriptions for patients with cardiovascular disease and decreasing prescriptions for those with low oxygen saturation at admission. We show that personalized recommendations can improve patient outcomes by 1.0% compared to the standard of care when applied to external populations. We develop an interactive interface for our algorithm, providing physicians with an actionable tool to easily assess treatment alternatives and inform clinical decisions. This work offers the first personalized recommendation system to accurately evaluate the efficacy and risks of prescribing ACEIs and ARBs to hypertensive COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Hypertension/drug therapy , Aged , Algorithms , Ecuador , Electronic Health Records , Europe , Female , Humans , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL