Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm under the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%, P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.

Effect of tocilizumab versus standard of care in adults hospitalized with moderate-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Introduction and objectives: Tocilizumab is an interleukin-6 receptor-blocking agent proposed for the treatment of severe COVID-19; however, limited data are available on their efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of tocilizumab on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia by using propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis. Methods: A retrospective observational analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients admitted to the Vall d'Hebron Hospital was performed between March and April 2020. We used the logistic regression to analyze the effect of tocilizumab on mortality, as main outcome, and PSM analysis to further validate their effect. Secondary outcomes were length-of-stay (LOS) and intensive-care-unit (ICU) stay. Same outcomes were also assessed for early tocilizumab administration, within 72 h after admission. Patients were selected by matching their individual propensity for receiving therapy with tocilizumab, conditional on their demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 544 COVID-19 patients were included, 197 (36.2%) were treated with tocilizumab of whom 147 were treated within the first 72 h after admission; and 347 were included in the control group. After PSM analyses, the results showed no association between tocilizumab use and overall mortality (OR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.63-1.68). However, shorter ICU-stay in the tocilizumab group was found compared to the control group (Coefficient -4.27 95%CI: -6.63 to -1.92). Similar results were found in the early tocilizumab cohort. Conclusions: The administration of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 did not reduce the risk of mortality in our cohort of patients, regardless of the time of administration.

Introducción y objetivos: El tocilizumab es un agente bloqueador del receptor de la interleucina 6 propuesto para el tratamiento de la COVID-19 grave; sin embargo, se dispone de datos limitados sobre su eficacia. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el efecto de tocilizumab en los resultados de los pacientes con neumonía por COVID-19 mediante un análisis de emparejamiento por propensity-score-matching (PSM, «puntuación de propensión¼). Métodos: Se realizó un análisis observacional retrospectivo de los pacientes adultos con COVID-19 ingresados en el Hospital Vall d'Hebron entre marzo y abril de 2020. Se utilizó la regresión logística para analizar el efecto de tocilizumab en la mortalidad, como resultado principal, y el análisis PSM para validar aún más su efecto. Los resultados secundarios fueron la duración de la estancia y la estancia en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). También se evaluaron los mismos resultados para la administración temprana de tocilizumab, dentro de las 72 h posteriores al ingreso. Los pacientes se seleccionaron mediante el emparejamiento de su propensión individual a recibir tratamiento con tocilizumab, condicionado a sus variables demográficas y clínicas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 544 pacientes de COVID-19, 197 (36,2%) fueron tratados con tocilizumab, de los cuales 147 fueron tratados dentro de las primeras 72 h tras el ingreso; y 347 fueron incluidos en el grupo control. Tras los análisis PSM, los resultados no mostraron ninguna asociación entre el uso de tocilizumab y la mortalidad global (OR = 1,03; IC del 95%: 0,63-1,68). Sin embargo, se encontró una menor estancia en la UCI en el grupo de tocilizumab en comparación con el grupo de control (coeficiente −4,27; IC del 95%: −6,63 − −1,92). Se encontraron resultados similares en la cohorte de tocilizumab temprano. Conclusiones: La administración de tocilizumab en pacientes con COVID-19 moderada a grave no redujo el riesgo de mortalidad en nuestra cohorte de pacientes, independientemente del momento de la administración.

A comparative analysis of the outcomes of patients with influenza or COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital in Belgium.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a global health problem, associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 or with seasonal influenza in a teaching hospital in Belgium. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, 1384 patients with COVID-19 and 226 patients with influenza were matched using a propensity score with a ratio of 3:1. Primary outcomes included admission to intensive care unit (ICU), intubation rates, hospital length of stay, readmissions within 30 days and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary bacterial superinfection, cardiovascular complications and ECMO. RESULTS: Based on the analysis of the matched sample, patients with influenza had an increased risk of readmission within 30 days (Risk Difference (RD): 0.07, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.11) and admission to intensive care unit (RD: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.15) compared with those with COVID-19. Patients with influenza had also more pulmonary bacterial superinfections (46.2% vs 7.4%) and more cardiovascular complications (32% vs 3.9%) than patients with COVID-19.However, a two-fold increased risk of mortality (RD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.15 to -0.05) was observed in COVID-19 compared to influenza. ECMO was also more required among the COVID-19 patients who died than among influenza patients (5% vs 0%). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is associated with a higher in-hospital mortality compared to influenza infection, despite a high rate of ICU admission in the influenza group. These findings highlighted that the severity of hospitalized patients with influenza should not be underestimated.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnant Women: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Data From the COVID-19 Registry Japan.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated whether pregnancy is a risk factor for developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the results remain controversial. In addition, the information regarding risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 in pregnant women is limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study analyzing the data from the nationwide COVID-19 registry in Japan was conducted. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare COVID-19 severity between pregnant and nonpregnant women. Multivariate analysis was also conducted to evaluate risk factors for developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in pregnant women. RESULTS: During the study period, 254 pregnant and 3752 nonpregnant women of reproductive age were identified. After propensity score matching, 187 pregnant women and 935 nonpregnant women were selected. A composite outcome of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was more frequently observed in pregnant women than that of nonpregnant women (n = 18 [9.6%] vs n = 46 [4.9%]; P = .0155). In multivariate analysis, the presence of underlying diseases and being in the second-to-third trimester of pregnancy were recognized as risk factors for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in pregnant women (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 5.295 [1.21-23.069] and 3.871 [1.201-12.477], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy could be a risk factor for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 for women in Japan. In addition to the presence of comorbidities, advanced pregnancy stages may contribute to greater risks for developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in pregnant women.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and Clinical Trials: Understanding Conflicting Outcomes.

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy, such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement, or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. The conflicting trial results, along with both recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage and the recent expansion of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) to include outpatient use of CCP, create confusion for both clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of CCP. A review of 30 available RCTs demonstrated that signals of efficacy (including reductions in mortality) were more likely if the CCP neutralizing titer was >160 and the time to randomization was less than 9 days. The emergence of the Omicron variant also reminds us of the benefits of polyclonal antibody therapies, especially as a bridge to the development and availability of more specific therapies.

Effect of tocilizumab versus standard of care in adults hospitalized with moderate-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Tocilizumab is an interleukin-6 receptor-blocking agent proposed for the treatment of severe COVID-19; however, limited data are available on their efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of tocilizumab on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia by using propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis. METHODS: A retrospective observational analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients admitted to the Vall d'Hebron Hospital was performed between March and April 2020. We used the logistic regression to analyze the effect of tocilizumab on mortality, as main outcome, and PSM analysis to further validate their effect. Secondary outcomes were length-of-stay (LOS) and intensive-care-unit (ICU) stay. Same outcomes were also assessed for early tocilizumab administration, within 72h after admission. Patients were selected by matching their individual propensity for receiving therapy with tocilizumab, conditional on their demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: A total of 544 COVID-19 patients were included, 197 (36.2%) were treated with tocilizumab of whom 147 were treated within the first 72h after admission; and 347 were included in the control group. After PSM analyses, the results showed no association between tocilizumab use and overall mortality (OR=1.03, 95%CI: 0.63-1.68). However, shorter ICU-stay in the tocilizumab group was found compared to the control group (Coefficient -4.27 95%CI: -6.63 to -1.92). Similar results were found in the early tocilizumab cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 did not reduce the risk of mortality in our cohort of patients, regardless of the time of administration.

Pharmacological Predictors of Morbidity and Mortality in COVID-19.

The interaction of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with the majority of common prescriptions is broadly unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify medications associated with altered disease outcomes in COVID-19. A retrospective cohort composed of all adult inpatient admissions to our center with COVID-19 was analyzed. Data concerning all antecedent prescriptions were collected and agents brought forward for analysis if prescribed to at least 20 patients in our cohort. Forty-two medications and 22 classes of medication were examined. Groups were propensity score matched and analyzed by logistic and linear regression. The majority of medications did not show a statistically significant relationship with altered disease outcomes. Lower mortality was associated with use of pregabalin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.92; P = .049) and inhalers of any type (HR, 0.33; 95%CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .015), specifically beclomethasone (HR, 0.10; 95%CI, 0.01-0.82; P = .032), tiotropium (HR, 0.07; 95%CI, 0.01-0.83; P = .035), and steroid-containing inhalers (HR, 0.35; 95%CI, 0.15-0.79; P = .013). Gliclazide (HR, 4.37; 95%CI, 1.26-15.18; P = .020) and proton pump inhibitor (HR, 1.72; 95%CI, 1.06-2.79; P = .028) use was associated with greater mortality. Diuretic (HR, 0.07; 95%CI, 0.01-0.37; P = .002) and statin (HR, 0.35; 95%CI, 0.17-0.73; P = .006) use was associated with lower rates of critical care admission. Our data lends confidence to observing usual practice in patients with COVID-19 by continuing antecedent prescriptions in the absence of an alternative acute contraindication. We highlight potential benefits in investigation of diuretics, inhalers, pregabalin, and statins as therapeutic agents for COVID-19 and support further assessment of the safety of gliclazide and proton pump inhibitors in the acute illness.

Fibrinolysis Therapy Combined with Deferred PCI versus Primary Angioplasty for STEMI Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Results from a Single Center.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of fibrinolysis therapy with deferred percutaneous coronary angioplasty (FPCI) versus primary angioplasty (PPCI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear when medical quarantine is needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients underwent PPCI after finishing the screening protocol from January 23, 2020 to June 10, 2020 while FPCI was applied when COVID-19-confirmed cases reoccurred in Beijing near our hospital from June 11, 2020 to July 20, 2020. The door-to-balloon time (DTB) or door-to-needle time (DTN) as well as in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to diminish the potential influence of confounding factors on the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 126 STEMI patients underwent PPCI after finishing the screening protocol and 17 patients received FPCI before PSM. Patients who received FPCI were younger than patients who underwent PPCI (50.8±14.0 versus 64.1±14.2 years, p=0.001), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) was less common in FPCI patients than in patients who underwent PPCI (0% versus 24.6%, p=0.024). The DTN was significantly shorter than DTB (25.8±4.2 versus 61.1±10.7, p=0.000) before PSM. The DTN was significantly shorter than DTB (26.9±4.2 versus 64.9±23.6, p=0.000); however, the incidence rate of in-hospital ischemia and bleeding adverse clinical outcomes were comparable between the two groups after PSM. CONCLUSION: Fibrinolysis therapy combined with deferred PCI can reduce the ischemia time and has a similar in-hospital adverse clinical outcome rate compared with patients who underwent primary PCI during the COVID-19 pandemic.