ABSTRACT
Objective: This work aimed to compare the characteristics, progress, and prognosis of patients with COPD hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain in the first wave with those of the second wave. Material and methods: This is an observational study of patients hospitalized in Spain with a diagnosis of COPD included in the SEMI-COVID-19 registry. The medical history, symptoms, analytical and radiological results, treatment, and progress of patients with COPD hospitalized in the first wave (from March to June 2020) versus those hospitalized in the second wave (from July to December 2020) were compared. Factors associated with poor prognosis, defined as all-cause mortality and a composite endpoint that included mortality, high-flow oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission, were analyzed. Results: Of the 21,642 patients in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 6.9% were diagnosed with COPD: 1,128 (6.8%) in WAVE1 and 374 (7.7%) in WAVE2 (p = 0.04). WAVE2 patients presented less dry cough, fever and dyspnea, hypoxemia (43% vs 36%, p < 0.05), and radiological condensation (46% vs 31%, p < 0.05) than WAVE1 patients. Mortality was lower in WAVE2 (35% vs 28.6%, p = 0.01). In the total sample, mortality and the composite outcome of poor prognosis were lower among patients who received inhalation therapy. Conclusions: Patients with COPD admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 in the second wave had less respiratory failure and less radiological involvement as well as a better prognosis. These patients should receive bronchodilator treatment if there is no contraindication for it.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to compare the characteristics, progress, and prognosis of patients with COPD hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain in the first wave with those of the second wave. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational study of patients hospitalized in Spain with a diagnosis of COPD included in the SEMI-COVID-19 registry. The medical history, symptoms, analytical and radiological results, treatment, and progress of patients with COPD hospitalized in the first wave (from March to June 2020) versus those hospitalized in the second wave (from July to December 2020) were compared. Factors associated with poor prognosis, defined as all-cause mortality and a composite endpoint that included mortality, high-flow oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission, were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 21,642 patients in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 6.9% were diagnosed with COPD: 1128 (6.8%) in WAVE1 and 374 (7.7%) in WAVE2 (p = 0.04). WAVE2 patients presented less dry cough, fever and dyspnea, hypoxemia (43% vs 36%, p < 0.05), and radiological condensation (46% vs 31%, p < 0.05) than WAVE1 patients. Mortality was lower in WAVE2 (35% vs 28.6%, p = 0.01). In the total sample, mortality and the composite outcome of poor prognosis were lower among patients who received inhalation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COPD admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 in the second wave had less respiratory failure and less radiological involvement as well as a better prognosis. These patients should receive bronchodilator treatment if there is no contraindication for it.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain , Hospitalization , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered entire nations and their health systems. The greatest impact of the pandemic has been seen among vulnerable populations, such as those with comorbidities like heart diseases, kidney failure, obesity, or those with worse health determinants such as unemployment and poverty. In the current study, we are proposing previous exposure to fine-grained volcanic ashes as a risk factor for developing COVID-19. Based on several previous studies it has been known since the mid 1980s of the past century that volcanic ash is most likely an accelerating factor to suffer from different types of cancer, including lung or thyroid cancer. Our study postulates, that people who are most likely to be infected during a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) widespread wave will be those with comorbidities that are related to previous exposure to volcanic ashes. We have explored 8703 satellite images from the past 21 y of available data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database and correlated them with the data from the national institute of health statistics in Ecuador. Additionally, we provide more realistic numbers of fatalities due to the virus based on excess mortality data of 2020-2021, when compared with previous years. This study would be a very first of its kind combining social and spatial distribution of COVID-19 infections and volcanic ash distribution. The results and implications of our study will also help countries to identify such aforementioned vulnerable parts of the society, if the given geodynamic and volcanic settings are similar.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to elucidate differences in the characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization in Japan, by COVID-19 waves, from conventional strains to the Delta variant. METHODS: We used secondary data from a database and performed a retrospective cohort study that included 3261 patients aged ≥ 18 years enrolled from 78 hospitals that participated in the Japan COVID-19 Task Force between February 2020 and September 2021. RESULTS: Patients hospitalized during the second (mean age, 53.2 years [standard deviation {SD}, ± 18.9]) and fifth (mean age, 50.7 years [SD ± 13.9]) COVID-19 waves had a lower mean age than those hospitalized during the other COVID-19 waves. Patients hospitalized during the first COVID-19 wave had a longer hospital stay (mean, 30.3 days [SD ± 21.5], p < 0.0001), and post-hospitalization complications, such as bacterial infections (21.3%, p < 0.0001), were also noticeable. In addition, there was an increase in the use of drugs such as remdesivir/baricitinib/tocilizumab/steroids during the latter COVID-19 waves. In the fifth COVID-19 wave, patients exhibited a greater number of presenting symptoms, and a higher percentage of patients required oxygen therapy at the time of admission. However, the percentage of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest in the first COVID-19 wave and the mortality rate was the highest in the third COVID-19 wave. CONCLUSIONS: We identified differences in clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in each COVID-19 wave up to the fifth COVID-19 wave in Japan. The fifth COVID-19 wave was associated with greater disease severity on admission, the third COVID-19 wave had the highest mortality rate, and the first COVID-19 wave had the highest percentage of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Patients , HospitalizationABSTRACT
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan, China, was triggered and unfolded quickly throughout the globe by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The new virus, transmitted primarily through inhalation or contact with infected droplets, seems very contagious and pathogenic, with an incubation period varying from 2 to 14 days. The epidemic is an ongoing public health problem that challenges the present global health system. A worldwide social and economic stress has been observed. The transitional source of origin and its transport to humans is unknown, but speedy human transportation has been accepted extensively. The typical clinical symptoms of COVID-19 are almost like colds. With case fatality rates varying from 2 to 3 percent, a small number of patients may experience serious health problems or even die. To date, there is a limited number of antiviral agents or vaccines for the treatment of COVID-19. The occurrence and pathogenicity of COVID-19 infection are outlined and comparatively analyzed, given the outbreak's urgency. The recent developments in diagnostics, treatment, and marketed vaccine are discussed to deal with this viral outbreak. Now the scientist is concerned about the appearance of several variants over the globe and the efficacy of the vaccine against these variants. There is a need for consistent monitoring of the virus epidemiology and surveillance of the ongoing variant and related disease severity.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine similarities and differences in clinical characteristics between the patients from two waves of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection at the time of hospital admission, as well as to identify risk biomarkers of coronavirus disease 2019 severity. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single tertiary-care center in Madrid. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients admitted to hospital from March 4, 2020, to March 25, 2020 (first infection wave), and during July 18, 2020, and August 20, 2020 (second infection wave). INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with a hospital-approved drug cocktail during hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were compared between the patients with moderate and critical/fatal illness across both infection waves. The median age of patients with critical/fatal coronavirus disease 2019 was 67.5 years (interquartile range, 56.75-78.25 yr; 64.5% male) in the first wave and 59.0 years (interquartile range, 48.25-80.50 yr; 70.8% male) in the second wave. Hypertension and dyslipidemia were major comorbidities in both waves. Body mass index over 25 and presence of bilateral pneumonia were common findings. Univariate logistic regression analyses revealed an association of a number of blood parameters with the subsequent illness progression and severity in both waves. However, some remarkable differences were detected between both waves that prevented an accurate extrapolation of prediction models from the first wave into the second wave. Interleukin-6 and d-dimer concentrations at the time of hospital admission were remarkably higher in patients who developed a critical/fatal condition only during the first wave (p < 0.001), although both parameters significantly increased with disease worsening in follow-up studies from both waves. Multivariate analyses from wave 1 rendered a predictive signature for critical/fatal illness upon hospital admission that comprised six blood biomarkers: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (≥ 5; odds ratio, 2.684 [95% CI, 1.143-6.308]), C-reactive protein (≥ 15.2 mg/dL; odds ratio, 2.412 [95% CI, 1.006-5.786]), lactate dehydrogenase (≥ 411.96 U/L; odds ratio, 2.875 [95% CI, 1.229-6.726]), interleukin-6 (≥ 78.8 pg/mL; odds ratio, 5.737 [95% CI, 2.432-13.535]), urea (≥ 40 mg/dL; odds ratio, 1.701 [95% CI, 0.737-3.928]), and d-dimer (≥ 713 ng/mL; odds ratio, 1.903 [95% CI, 0.832-4.356]). The predictive accuracy of the signature was 84% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.886. When the signature was validated with data from wave 2, the accuracy was 81% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value was 0.874, albeit most biomarkers lost their independent significance. Follow-up studies reassured the importance of monitoring the biomarkers included in the signature, since dramatic increases in the levels of such biomarkers occurred in critical/fatal patients over disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Most parameters analyzed behaved similarly in the two waves of coronavirus disease 2019. However, univariate logistic regression conducted in both waves revealed differences in some parameters associated with poor prognosis in wave 1 that were not found in wave 2, which may reflect a different disease stage of patients on arrival to hospital. The six-biomarker predictive signature reported here constitutes a helpful tool to classify patient's prognosis on arrival to hospital.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has already exerted an enormous impact on the entire world. Everything is overwhelmed in the face of a rapid escalation of cases. The countries that have already reported the peak of transmission are easing their preventive measures yet fearing a second wave of infection. If the virus causes that next wave, are we sufficiently prepared to deal with it? I argue that the stakeholders concerned should simultaneously handle the ongoing pandemic while making effective preparations for its second wave. To relax the preventive measures, countries must thoroughly revisit their situations based on scientific evidence.