Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Several U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372). SETTING: 558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. PARTICIPANTS: Adult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Each hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed. RESULTS: Of 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload. LIMITATION: Residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

Trends in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with the quality of ambulatory care is unknown. Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are a well-studied measure of the quality of ambulatory care; however, they may also be associated with other patient-level and system-level factors. Objective: To describe trends in hospital admissions for ACSCs in the prepandemic period (March 2019 to February 2020) compared with the pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period. Exposure: COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted relative risk (aRR) of ACSC hospitalizations and intensive care unit stays for ACSC hospitalizations and adjusted incidence rate ratio of the length of stay of ACSC hospitalizations in the prepandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) vs pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) periods, adjusted for patient age, sex, calendar month of admission, and county of residence. Results: The study population included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period, in which 51.3% of person-months (n = 6 547 231) were for female patients, with a relatively even age distribution between the ages of 24 and 64 years. The relative risk of having any ACSC hospitalization in the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76; P < .001). This decrease in risk was slightly larger in magnitude than the overall reduction in non-ACSC, non-COVID-19 hospitalization rates (aRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83; P < .001). Large reductions were found in the relative risk of respiratory-related ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001), with non-statistically significant reductions in diabetes-related ACSCs (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; P = .05) and a statistically significant reduction in all other ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85; P < .001). Among ACSC hospitalizations, no change was found in the percentage that included an intensive care unit stay (aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04; P = .64), and no change was found in the length of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a large commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in both non-ACSC and ACSC hospitalizations, with particularly large reductions seen in respiratory-related ACSCs. These reductions were likely due to many patient-level and health system-level factors associated with hospitalization rates. Further research into the causes and long-term outcomes associated with these reductions in ACSC admissions is needed to understand how the pandemic has affected the delivery of ambulatory and hospital care in the US.

Serum 8-Hydroxydeoxyguanosine Is a Potential Indicator for the Severity and Prognosis in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Previous studies have demonstrated that 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) exerted key roles in various pulmonary diseases, but the evidence for its role in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was lacking. The goal of this research was to evaluate the correlations of serum 8-OHdG with the severity and prognosis among patients with CAP through a prospective cohort study. A total of 239 patients with CAP and 239 healthy participants were enrolled. Fasting blood samples were collected. 8-OHdG and inflammatory cytokines were measured by ELISA. On admission, serum 8-OHdG was significantly increased in patients with CAP compared with control subjects. Besides, serum 8-OHdG was incrementally increased in line with CAP severity scores. Pearson correlative analysis found that serum 8-OHdG was correlated with clinical characteristics and inflammatory cytokines in patients with CAP. Linear and logistic regression analysis showed that serum 8-OHdG was positively associated with CAP severity scores. Furthermore, the prognostic outcomes were tracked. Higher serum 8-OHdG on admission increased the risks for intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agent usage, death, and longer hospital stay among patients with CAP. Serum 8-OHdG combination with confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age ≥65 y or pneumonia severity index had stronger predictive powers for death than single 8-OHdG, CAP severity scores, or several inflammatory cytokines in patients with CAP. These results indicated that serum 8-OHdG is positively associated with the severity and poor prognosis in patients with CAP, demonstrating that 8-OHdG may be involved in the pathophysiology process of CAP.

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort. RESULTS: Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%. INTERPRETATION: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Mortality and critical care unit admission associated with the SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant of concern 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We aimed to estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in patients who are critically ill, and overall mortality associated with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with non-B.1.1.7. We also compared clinical outcomes between these two groups. METHODS: For this observational cohort study, we linked large primary care (QResearch), national critical care (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme), and national COVID-19 testing (Public Health England) databases. We used SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with S-gene molecular diagnostic assay failure (SGTF) as a proxy for the presence of lineage B.1.1.7. We extracted two cohorts from the data: the primary care cohort, comprising patients in primary care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 26, 2021, and known SGTF status; and the critical care cohort, comprising patients admitted for critical care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 27, 2021, and known SGTF status. We explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection with and without lineage B.1.1.7 and admission to a critical care unit (CCU), 28-day mortality, and 28-day mortality following CCU admission. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, geographical region, other sociodemographic factors (deprivation index, ethnicity, household housing category, and smoking status for the primary care cohort; and ethnicity, body-mass index, deprivation index, and dependency before admission to acute hospital for the CCU cohort), and comorbidities (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and hypertension for the primary care cohort; and cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, metastatic disease, and immunocompromised conditions for the CCU cohort). We reported information on types and duration of organ support for the B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 groups. FINDINGS: The primary care cohort included 198 420 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 117 926 (59·4%) had lineage B.1.1.7, 836 (0·4%) were admitted to CCU, and 899 (0·4%) died within 28 days. The critical care cohort included 4272 patients admitted to CCU. Of these, 2685 (62·8%) had lineage B.1.1.7 and 662 (15·5%) died at the end of critical care. In the primary care cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2·15 (95% CI 1·75-2·65) for CCU admission and 1·65 (1·36-2·01) for 28-day mortality for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with the non-B.1.1.7 group. The adjusted HR for mortality in critical care, estimated with the critical care cohort, was 0·91 (0·76-1·09) for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with those with non-B.1.1.7 infection. INTERPRETATION: Patients with lineage B.1.1.7 were at increased risk of CCU admission and 28-day mortality compared with patients with non-B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appeared to be independent of virus strain. Our findings emphasise the importance of measures to control exposure to and infection with COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.

Atorvastatin versus placebo in patients with covid-19 in intensive care: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of statin treatment versus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. Results for the anticoagulation randomization have been reported previously. Results for the double blind randomization to atorvastatin versus placebo are reported here. SETTING: 11 hospitals in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with covid-19 admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTION: Atorvastatin 20 mg orally once daily versus placebo, to be continued for 30 days from randomization irrespective of hospital discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality within 30 days from randomization. Prespecified safety outcomes included increase in liver enzyme levels more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinically diagnosed myopathy. A clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Of 605 patients randomized between 29 July 2020 and 4 April 2021 for statin randomization in the INSPIRATION-S trial, 343 were co-randomized to intermediate dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin based regimens, whereas 262 were randomized after completion of the anticoagulation study. 587 of the 605 participants were included in the primary analysis of INSPIRATION-S, reported here: 290 were assigned to atorvastatin and 297 to placebo (median age 57 years (interquartile range 45-68 years); 256 (44%) women). The primary outcome occurred in 95 (33%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 108 (36%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.21). Death occurred in 90 (31%) patients in the atorvastatin group and 103 (35%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.22). Rates for venous thromboembolism were 2% (n=6) in the atorvastatin group and 3% (n=9) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 2.06). Myopathy was not clinically diagnosed in either group. Liver enzyme levels were increased in five (2%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and six (2%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 2.81). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with covid-19 admitted to the ICU, atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality compared with placebo. Treatment was, however, found to be safe. As the overall event rates were lower than expected, a clinically important treatment effect cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486508.

Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Aged ≥18 Years Who Completed a Primary COVID-19 Vaccination Series - 465 Health Care Facilities, United States, December 2020-October 2021.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is highly effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death; however, some vaccinated persons might develop COVID-19 with severe outcomes† (1,2). Using data from 465 facilities in a large U.S. health care database, this study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for developing a severe COVID-19 outcome after completing a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (primary vaccination), defined as receipt of 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) or a single dose of JNJ-78436735 [Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)] ≥14 days before illness onset. Severe COVID-19 outcomes were defined as hospitalization with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, need for noninvasive ventilation (NIV), admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) including all persons requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (including discharge to hospice). Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020-October 2021, a total of 2,246 (18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated persons) developed COVID-19 and 189 (1.5 per 10,000) had a severe outcome, including 36 who died (0.3 deaths per 10,000). Risk for severe outcomes was higher among persons who were aged ≥65 years, were immunosuppressed, or had at least one of six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one of these risk factors, and 77.8% of those who died had four or more risk factors. Severe COVID-19 outcomes after primary vaccination are rare; however, vaccinated persons who are aged ≥65 years, are immunosuppressed, or have other underlying conditions might be at increased risk. These persons should receive targeted interventions including chronic disease management, precautions to reduce exposure, additional primary and booster vaccine doses, and effective pharmaceutical therapy as indicated to reduce risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Increasing COVID-19 vaccination coverage is a public health priority.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Workload, Case Mix and hospital Resources at a Tertiary Vascular Unit.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated impact on the provision of vascular services, and the pattern of presentation and practice in a tertiary referral vascular unit. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study from a prospectively maintained data-base comparing two time frames, Period 1(15th March-30th May 2019-P1) and Period 2(15th March-30th May 2020-P2)All the patients who presented for a vascular review in the 2 timeframes were included. Metrics of service and patient care episodes were collected and compared including, the number of emergency referrals, patient encounters, consultations, emergency admissions and interventions. Impact on key hospital resources such as critical care and imaging facilities during the two time periods were also examined. RESULTS: There was an absolute reduction of 44% in the number of patients who required urgent or emergency treatment from P1 to P2 (141 vs 79). We noted a non-significant trend towards an increase in the proportion of patients presenting with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia (CLTI) Rutherford 5&6 (P=0.09) as well as a reduction in the proportion of admissions related to Aortic Aneurysm (P=0.21). There was a significant absolute reduction of 77% in all vascular interventions from P1 to P2 with the greatest reductions noted in Carotid (P=0.02), Deep Venous (P=0.003) and Aortic interventions (P=0.016). The number of lower limb interventions also decreased though there was a significant increase as a relative proportion of all vascular interventions in P2 (P=0.001). There was an absolute reduction in the number of scans performed for vascular pathology; Duplex scans reduced by 86%(P<0.002), CT scans by 68%(P<0.003) and MRIs by 74%(P<0.009). CONCLUSION: We report a decrease in urgent and emergency vascular presentations, admissions and interventions. The reduction in patients presenting with lower limb pathology was not as significant as other vascular conditions, resulting in a significant rise in interventions for CLTI and DFI as a proportion of all vascular interventions. These observations will help guide the provision of vascular services during future pandemics.

Prognosis Score System to Predict Survival for COVID-19 Cases: a Korean Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, an initial risk-adapted allocation is crucial for managing medical resources and providing intensive care. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to identify factors that predict the overall survival rate for COVID-19 cases and develop a COVID-19 prognosis score (COPS) system based on these factors. In addition, disease severity and the length of hospital stay for patients with COVID-19 were analyzed. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a nationwide cohort of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases between January and April 2020 in Korea. The cohort was split randomly into a development cohort and a validation cohort with a 2:1 ratio. In the development cohort (n=3729), we tried to identify factors associated with overall survival and develop a scoring system to predict the overall survival rate by using parameters identified by the Cox proportional hazard regression model with bootstrapping methods. In the validation cohort (n=1865), we evaluated the prediction accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The score of each variable in the COPS system was rounded off following the log-scaled conversion of the adjusted hazard ratio. RESULTS: Among the 5594 patients included in this analysis, 234 (4.2%) died after receiving a COVID-19 diagnosis. In the development cohort, six parameters were significantly related to poor overall survival: older age, dementia, chronic renal failure, dyspnea, mental disturbance, and absolute lymphocyte count <1000/mm3. The following risk groups were formed: low-risk (score 0-2), intermediate-risk (score 3), high-risk (score 4), and very high-risk (score 5-7) groups. The COPS system yielded an area under the curve value of 0.918 for predicting the 14-day survival rate and 0.896 for predicting the 28-day survival rate in the validation cohort. Using the COPS system, 28-day survival rates were discriminatively estimated at 99.8%, 95.4%, 82.3%, and 55.1% in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and very high-risk groups, respectively, of the total cohort (P<.001). The length of hospital stay and disease severity were directly associated with overall survival (P<.001), and the hospital stay duration was significantly longer among survivors (mean 26.1, SD 10.7 days) than among nonsurvivors (mean 15.6, SD 13.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed predictive COPS system may assist in making risk-adapted decisions for the allocation of medical resources, including intensive care, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Can we still consider treatment with colchicine effective in SARS-COV-2 infection? Systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of colchicine, compared with standard of care, for reducing mortality, admission to intensive care, and use of mechanical ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and sequential trial analysis. The terms (SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR coronavirus) AND (colchicine) were searched in MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and preprint repositories (February 2020 to April 2021, extended to June 2021). Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and observational studies were assessed using the tools RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I, respectively. We performed subgroup analyses based on study design and sensitivity analyses based on time of colchicine administration. RESULTS: We included six observational studies (1329 patients) and five clinical trials (16,048 patients). All studies but one were conducted in the hospital setting. Colchicine treatment was not associated with a significant decrease in mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1; p=0.06, I2=72%) with a significant subgroup effect (p<0.001) depending on the design of the studies. The drug was effective in observational studies (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.70, p<0.001, I2=50%) but not in clinical trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07, p=0.89, I2=21%). The effect of colchicine on intensive care admissions and the need for mechanical ventilation could not be confirmed. Trial sequential boundaries for cumulative meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials suggested no significant effect on mortality (p=0.182) beyond the optimal information size (13,107 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that colchicine treatment has no effect on mortality in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that no further confirmatory clinical trials are needed owing to futility.

A Deep Look Into COVID-19 Severity Through Dynamic Changes in Blood Cytokine Levels.

An excessive inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 is thought to be a major cause of disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of cytokine release can expand our understanding of the initial stages of disease development and help to identify early markers serving as predictors of disease severity. In this study, we performed a comprehensive analysis of 46 cytokines (including chemokines and growth factors) in the peripheral blood of a large cohort of COVID-19 patients (n=444). The patients were classified into five severity groups. Longitudinal analysis of all patients revealed two groups of cytokines, characterizing the "early" and "late" stages of the disease course and the switch between type 1 and type 2 immunity. We found significantly increased levels of cytokines associated with different severities of COVID-19, and levels of some cytokines were significantly higher during the first three days from symptom onset (DfSO) in patients who eventually required intensive care unit (ICU) therapy. Additionally, we identified nine cytokines, TNF-α, IL-10, MIG, IL-6, IP-10, M-CSF, G-CSF, GM-CSF, and IFN-α2, that can be used as good predictors of ICU requirement at 4-6 DfSO.

Why Females Do Better: The X Chromosomal TLR7 Gene-Dose Effect in COVID-19.

A male sex bias has emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic, fitting to the sex-biased pattern in other viral infections. Males are 2.84 times more often admitted to the ICU and mortality is 1.39 times higher as a result of COVID-19. Various factors play a role in this, and novel studies suggest that the gene-dose of Toll-Like Receptor (TLR) 7 could contribute to the sex-skewed severity. TLR7 is one of the crucial pattern recognition receptors for SARS-CoV-2 ssRNA and the gene-dose effect is caused by X chromosome inactivation (XCI) escape. Female immune cells with TLR7 XCI escape have biallelic TLR7 expression and produce more type 1 interferon (IFN) upon TLR7 stimulation. In COVID-19, TLR7 in plasmacytoid dendritic cells is one of the pattern recognition receptors responsible for IFN production and a delayed IFN response has been associated with immunopathogenesis and mortality. Here, we provide a hypothesis that females may be protected to some extend against severe COVID-19, due to the biallelic TLR7 expression, allowing them to mount a stronger and more protective IFN response early after infection. Studies exploring COVID-19 treatment via the TLR7-mediated IFN pathway should consider this sex difference. Various factors such as age, sex hormones and escape modulation remain to be investigated concerning the TLR7 gene-dose effect.

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness in the first wave versus the second wave.

Due to current advances and growing experience in the management of coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the outcome of COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness would be expected to be better in the second wave compared with the first wave. As our hospitalization criteria changed in the second wave, we aimed to investigate whether a favorable outcome occurred in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with only severe/critical illness. Among 642 laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the first wave and 1121 in the second wave, those who met World Health Organization (WHO) definitions for severe or critical illness on admission or during follow-up were surveyed. Data on demographics, comorbidities, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on admission, and outcomes were obtained from an electronic hospital database. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the characteristics of patients in the first and second waves. There were 228 (35.5%) patients with severe/critical illness in the first wave and 681 (60.7%) in the second wave. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and comorbidities, other than chronic kidney disease. Median serum CRP levels were significantly higher in patients in the second wave compared with those in the first wave [109 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR]: 65-157) vs. 87 mg/L (IQR: 39-140); p < 0.001]. However, intensive care unit admission and mortality rates were similar among the waves. Even though a lower mortality rate in the second wave has been reported in previous studies, including all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found similar demographics and outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness in the first and second wave.

Association between tracheostomy timing and outcomes for older critically ill COVID-19 patients: prospective observational study in European intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is performed in patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, but to date optimal timing of tracheostomy has not been established. The evidence concerning tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients is particularly scarce. We aimed to describe the relationship between early tracheostomy (≤10 days since intubation) and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study performed in 152 centres across 16 European countries from February to December 2020. We included patients aged ≥70 yr with confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to an intensive care unit, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the association between early tracheostomy and clinical outcomes including 3-month mortality, intensive care length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1740 patients with a mean age of 74 yr. Tracheostomy was performed in 461 (26.5%) patients. The tracheostomy rate varied across countries, from 8.3% to 52.9%. Early tracheostomy was performed in 135 (29.3%) patients. There was no difference in 3-month mortality between early and late tracheostomy in either our primary analysis (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.33) or a secondary landmark analysis (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation across Europe in the timing of tracheostomy for critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, we found no evidence that early tracheostomy is associated with any effect on survival amongst older critically ill patients with COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04321265.

Challenges and Lessons Learned for Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation of Persons With COVID-19: Clinical Presentation, Assessment, Needs, and Services Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to present: (1) physiatric care delivery amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, (2) challenges, (3) data from the first cohort of post-COVID-19 inpatient rehabilitation facility patients, and (4) lessons learned by a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions. DESIGN: For this clinical descriptive retrospective study, data were extracted from post-COVID-19 patient records treated at a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation inpatient rehabilitation facilities (May 1-June 30, 2020) to characterize admission criteria, physical space, precautions, bed numbers, staffing, employee wellness, leadership, and family communication. For comparison, data from the Uniform Data System and eRehabData databases were analyzed. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation members discussed experiences and lessons learned. RESULTS: The COVID-19 patients (N = 320) were treated during the study period. Most patients were male, average age of 61.9 yrs, and 40.9% were White. The average acute care length of stay before inpatient rehabilitation facility admission was 24.5 days; mean length of stay at inpatient rehabilitation facilities was 15.2 days. The rehabilitation research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions reported a greater proportion of COVID-19 patients discharged to home compared with prepandemic data. Some institutions reported higher changes in functional scores during rehabilitation admission, compared with prepandemic data. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic acutely affected patient care and overall institutional operations. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions responded dynamically to bed expansions/contractions, staff deployment, and innovations that facilitated safe and effective patient care.

Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy at the Epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Impact on Critical Care Resource Utilization and Early Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed New York City hospitals early in the pandemic. Shortages of ventilators and sedatives prompted tracheostomy earlier than recommended by professional societies. This study evaluates the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy (PDT) in COVID+ patients on critical care capacity. METHODS: This is a single-institution prospective case series of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients undergoing PDT from April 1 to June 4, 2020 at a public tertiary care center. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients met PDT criteria and underwent PDT at a median of 13 days (IQR 10, 18) from intubation. Patient characteristics are found in Table 1. Intravenous midazolam, fentanyl, and cisatracurium equivalents were significantly reduced 48 hours post-PDT (Table 2). Thirty-five patients were transferred from the ICU and liberated from the ventilator. Median time from PDT to ventilator liberation and ICU discharge was 10 (IQR 4, 14) and 12 (IQR 8, 17) days, respectively. Decannulation occurred in 45.5% and 52.7% were discharged from acute inpatient care (Figure 1). Median follow-up for the study was 62 days. Four patients had bleeding complications postoperatively and 11 died during the study period. Older age was associated with increased odds of complication (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04, 1.23) and death (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.05, 1.30). All operators tested negative for COVID-19 during the study period. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within the standard time frame can improve critical care capacity in areas strained by the pandemic with low risk to operators. Long-term outcomes after PDT deserve further study.

Assessment of the HScore as a predictor of disease outcome in patients with COVID-19.

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accompanies hypercytokinemia, similar to secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH). We aimed to find if HScore could predict disease severity in COVID-19. HScore was calculated in hospitalized children and adult patients with a proven diagnosis of COVID-19. The need for intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality were recorded. The median HScore was 43.0 (IQR 0.0-63.0), which was higher in those who needed ICU care (59.7, 95% CI 46.4-72.7) compared to those admitted to non-ICU medical wards (38.8, 95% CI 32.2-45.4; P = 0.003). It was also significantly higher in patients who died of COVID-19 (105.1, 95% CI 53.7-156.5) than individuals who survived (41.5, 95% CI 35.8-47.1; P = 0.005). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that higher HScore was associated with a higher risk of ICU admission (adjusted OR = 4.93, 95% CI 1.5-16.17, P = 0.008). The risk of death increased by 20% for every ten units increase in HScore (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, P = 0.009). Time to discharge was statistically longer in high HScore levels than low levels (HR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.69). HScore is much lower in patients with severe COVID-19 than sHLH. Higher HScore is associated with more ICU admission, more extended hospitalization, and a higher mortality rate. A modified HScore with a new cut-off seems more practical in predicting disease severity in patients with severe COVID-19.

Serum sodium alterations in SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection: impact on patient outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder in hospitalized patients and occurs in about 30% of patients with pneumonia. Hyponatremia has been associated with a worse outcome in several pathologic conditions The main objective of this study was to determine whether serum sodium alterations may be independent predictors of the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this observational study, data from 441 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to a University Hospital were collected. After excluding 61 patients (no serum sodium at admission available, saline solution infusion before sodium assessment, transfer from another hospital), data from 380 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: 274 (72.1%) patients had normonatremia at admission, 87 (22.9%) patients had hyponatremia and 19 (5%) patients had hypernatremia. We found an inverse correlation between serum sodium and IL-6, whereas a direct correlation between serum sodium and PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed. Patients with hyponatremia had a higher prevalence of non-invasive ventilation and ICU transfer than those with normonatremia or hypernatremia. Hyponatremia was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (2.7-fold increase vs normonatremia) and each mEq/L of serum sodium reduction was associated with a 14.4% increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that serum sodium at admission may be considered as an early prognostic marker of disease severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.