Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265117, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742021

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To investigate the mortality and health care resource use among patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave of pandemic in China. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the mortality, discharge rate, length of hospital stay, and use of invasive ventilation in severe or critical COVID-19 cases in China. We searched electronic databases for studies from China with no restrictions on language or interventions patients received. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. We performed the meta-analysis using random-effect models through a Bayesian framework. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine studies by disease severity, study location and patient enrolment start date. We also performed sensitivity analysis using various priors, and assessed between-study heterogeneity and publication bias for the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 6,205 titles and abstracts screened, 500 were reviewed in full text. A total of 42 studies were included in the review, of which 95% were observational studies (n = 40). The pooled 28-day and 14-day mortalities among severe or critical patients were 20.48% (7,136 patients, 95% credible interval (CrI), 13.11 to 30.70) and 10.83% (95% CrI, 6.78 to 16.75), respectively. The mortality declined over time and was higher in patients with critical disease than severe cases (1,235 patients, 45.73%, 95% CrI, 22.79 to 73.52 vs. 3,969 patients, 14.90%, 95% CrI, 4.70 to 39.57) and patients in Hubei compared to those outside Hubei (6,719 patients, 26.62%, 95% CrI, 13.11 to 30.70 vs. 244 patients, 5.88%, 95% CrI 2.03 to 14.11). The length of hospital stay was estimated at 18.48 days (6,847 patients, 95% CrI, 17.59 to 21.21), the 28-day discharge rate was 50.48% (3,645 patients, 95% CrI, 26.47 to 79.53), and the use of invasive ventilation rate was 13.46% (4,108 patients, 95% CrI, 7.61 to 22.31). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found high mortality among severe and critical COVID-19 cases. Severe or critical COVID-19 cases consumed a large amount of hospital resources during the outbreak.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Length of Stay , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , China/epidemiology , Critical Illness , Humans , Severity of Illness Index
2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(1): ofab498, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606723

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined. RESULTS: The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54-77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.

4.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S27-S28, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564563

ABSTRACT

Background Remdesivir (RDV) reduced time to recovery and mortality in some subgroups of hospitalized patients in the NIAID ACTT-1 RCT compared to placebo. Comparative effectiveness data in clinical practice are limited. Methods Using the Premier Healthcare Database, we compared survival for adult non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized COVID-19 patients between Aug-Nov 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs. those who did not receive RDV. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Patients were matched on baseline O2 and 2-month admission period and were excluded if discharged within 3 days of RDV initiation (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hrs consistent with ACTT-1 study). Time to 14- and 28-day mortality was examined separately for patients on high-flow/non-invasive ventilation (NIV), low-flow, and no supplemental O2 using Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results RDV patients (n=27,559) were matched to unique non-RDV patients (n=15,617) (Fig 1). The two groups were balanced;median age 66 yrs and 73% white (RDV);68 yrs and 74% white (non-RDV), and 55% male. At baseline, 21% required high-flow O2, 50% low-flow O2, and 29% no O2, overall. Mortality in RDV patients was 9.6% and 13.8% on days 14 and 28, respectively. For non-RDV patients, mortality was 14.0% and 17.3% on days 14 and 28, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for time to mortality are shown in Fig 2. After adjusting for baseline and clinical covariates, RDV patients on no O2 and low-flow O2 had a significantly lower risk of death within 14 days (no O2, HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57—0.83;low-flow, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.59—0.77) and 28 days (no O2, HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68—0.94;low-flow, HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68—0.86). Additionally, RDV patients on high-flow O2/NIV had a significantly lower risk of death within 14 days (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70—0.93);but not at 28 days (Fig 3). Fig 1. Study Population Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier curves among matched patients hospitalized for COVID-19, August-November 2020 Fig 3. Cox proportional hazard model* for time to mortality among matched patients hospitalized for COVID-19, August-November 2020 Conclusion In this large study of patients in clinical care hospitalized with COVID-19, we observed a significant reduction of mortality in RDV vs. non-RDV treated patients in those on no O2 or low-flow O2. Mortality reduction was also seen in patients on high-flow O2 at day 14, but not day 28. These data support the use of RDV early in the course of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. Disclosures Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Aastha Chandak, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Zhiji Zhang, MS, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Shuting Liang, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Mark Thrun, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Eli Lilly (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Gift in kind to Baylor Scott and White Research Institute for NCT03383419)GSK (Advisor or Review Panel member)Johnson and Johnson (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kinevant (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Roche/Genentech (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD, Abpro (Consultant)Atea (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Decoy (Consultant)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)GSK (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Novartis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Rigel (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Paul Sax, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Resear h Grant or Support)ViiV (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) David Wohl, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member) Roman Casciano, M.Eng, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder)

5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447582

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited. METHODS: We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Aug-Nov 2020 and treated with RDV within two-days of hospitalization vs. those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges (NSO), low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (HFO/NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation/ECMO (IMV/ECMO) and two-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3-days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72-hrs consistent with ACTT-1 study). Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV and IMV/ECMO. RESULTS: 28,855 RDV patients were matched to 16,687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14- and 28-days, respectively compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14-days (HR[95% CI]: 0.76[0.70-0.83]) and 28-days (0.89[0.82-0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO and IMV/ECMO at 14-days (NSO:0.69[0.57-0.83], LFO:0.68[0.80-0.77], IMV/ECMO:0.70[0.58-0.84]) and 28-days (NSO:0.80[0.68-0.94], LFO:0.77[0.68-0.86], IMV/ECMO:0.81[0.69-0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14-days (0.81[0.70-0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28-days. CONCLUSIONS: RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among COVID-19 patients. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL