Nasal spray of an IgM-like ACE2 fusion protein HH-120 accelerates SARS-CoV-2 clearance: A single-center propensity score-matched cohort study.

HH-120, a recently developed IgM-like ACE2 fusion protein with broad-spectrum neutralizing activity against all ACE2-utilizing coronaviruses, has been developed as a nasal spray for use as an early treatment agent to reduce disease progression and airborne transmission. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the HH-120 nasal spray in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. Eligible symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected participants were enrolled in a single-arm trial to receive the HH-120 nasal spray for no longer than 6 days or until viral clearance at a single hospital between August 3 and October 7, 2022. An external control was built from real-world data of SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects contemporaneously hospitalized in the same hospital using a propensity score matching (PSM) method. After PSM, 65 participants in the HH-120 group and 103 subjects with comparable baseline characteristics in the external control group were identified. The viral clearance time was significantly shorter in participants receiving the HH-120 nasal spray than that in subjects of the control group (median 8 days vs. 10 days, p < 0.001); the difference was more prominent in those subgroup subjects with higher baseline viral load (median 7.5 days vs. 10.5 days, p < 0.001). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-related adverse events of HH-120 group were 35.1% (27/77) and 3.9% (3/77), respectively. All the adverse events observed were mild, being of CTCAE grade 1 or 2, and transient. The HH-120 nasal spray showed a favorable safety profile and promising antiviral efficacy in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. The results from this study warrant further assessment of the efficacy and safety of the HH-120 nasal spray in large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials.

Ivermectin Effect on In-Hospital Mortality and Need for Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: There is negligible evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ivermectin for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis hyperinfection syndrome in order to reduce mortality and the need for respiratory support in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: This single-center, observational, retrospective study included patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia at Hospital Vega Baja from 23 February 2020 to 14 March 2021. Because strongyloidiasis is endemic to our area, medical criteria support empiric administration of a single, 200 µg/kg dose of ivermectin to prevent Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome. The outcome was a composite of all-cause in-hospital mortality and the need for respiratory support. RESULTS: Of 1167 patients in the cohort, 96 received ivermectin. After propensity score matching, we included 192 patients. The composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or need for respiratory support occurred in 41.7% of the control group (40/96) and 34.4% (33/96) of the ivermectin group. Ivermectin was not associated with the outcome of interest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35, 1.69; p = 0.52). The factors independently associated with this endpoint were oxygen saturation (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68, 0.89, p < 0.001) and C-reactive protein at admission (aOR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.03, 1.16, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, ivermectin at a single dose for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis is not effective in reducing mortality or the need for respiratory support measures.

Tocilizumab versus anakinra in COVID-19: results from propensity score matching.

Background: Tocilizumab and anakinra are anti-interleukin drugs to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refractory to corticosteroids. However, no studies compared the efficacy of tocilizumab versus anakinra to guide the choice of the therapy in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. Methods: Our retrospective study was conducted in three French university hospitals between February 2021 and February 2022 and included all the consecutive hospitalized patients with a laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection assessed by RT-PCR who were treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. A propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding effects due to the non-random allocation. Results: Among 235 patients (mean age, 72 years; 60.9% of male patients), the 28-day mortality (29.4% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.76), the in-hospital mortality (31.7% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.83), the high-flow oxygen requirement (17.5% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.86), the intensive care unit admission rate (30.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.30), and the mechanical ventilation rate (15.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.50) were similar in patients receiving tocilizumab and those receiving anakinra. After propensity score matching, the 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 30.4%, p = 1) and the rate of high-flow oxygen requirement (10.1% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.081) did not differ between patients receiving tocilizumab or anakinra. Secondary infection rates were similar between the tocilizumab and anakinra groups (6.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.44). Conclusion: Our study showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles of tocilizumab and anakinra to treat severe COVID-19.

Understanding clinical characteristics influencing adverse outcomes of Omicron infection: a retrospective study with propensity score matching from a Fangcang hospital.

Objectives: The epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing global health concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate influence of clinical characteristics on outcomes during the Omicron outbreak. Methods: A total of 25182 hospitalized patients were enrolled, including 39 severe patients and 25143 non-severe patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the risk of severe disease, as well as the risk of prolonged viral shedding time (VST) and increased length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Before PSM, patients in the severe group were older, had higher symptom scores, and had a higher proportion of comorbidities (p<0.001). After PSM, there were no significant differences in age, gender, symptom score and comorbidities between severe (n=39) and non-severe (n=156) patients. Symptoms of fever (OR=6.358, 95%CI 1.748-23.119, p=0.005) and diarrhea (OR=6.523, 95%CI 1.061-40.110, p=0.043) were independent risk factors for development of severe disease. In non-severe patients, higher symptom score was associated with prolonged VST (OR=1.056, 95% CI 1.000-1.115, p=0.049) and LOS (OR=1.128, 95% CI 1.039-1.225, p=0.004); older age was associated with longer LOS (OR=1.045, 95% CI 1.007-1.084, p=0.020). Conclusion: The overall condition of the Shanghai Omicron epidemic was relatively mild. Potential risk factors for fever, diarrhea, and higher symptom score can help clinicians to predict clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir treatment and clinical outcome in non-severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a propensity score matching multicenter Italian hospital experience.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir exerts positive effects on clinical improvement, even though it seems not to affect mortality among COVID-19 patients; moreover, it was associated with the occurence of marked bradycardia. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 989 consecutive patients with non-severe COVID-19 (SpO2 ≥ 94% on room air) admitted from October 2020 to July 2021 at five Italian hospitals. Propensity score matching allowed to obtain a comparable control group. Primary endpoints were bradycardia onset (heart rate < 50 bpm), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in need of intubation and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (20.2%) received remdesivir, while 789 standard of care (79.8%). In the matched cohorts, severe ARDS in need of intubation was experienced by 70 patients (17.5%), significantly higher in the control group (68% vs. 31%; p < 0.0001). Conversely, bradycardia, experienced by 53 patients (12%), was significantly higher in the remdesivir subgroup (20% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.0001). During follow-up, all-cause mortality was 15% (N = 62), significantly higher in the control group (76% vs. 24%; log-rank p < 0.0001), as shown at the Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis. KM furthermore showed a significantly higher risk of severe ARDS in need of intubation among controls (log-rank p < 0.001), while an increased risk of bradycardia onset in the remdesivir group (log-rank p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression showed a protective role of remdesivir for both ARDS in need of intubation (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.85; p = 0.01) and mortality (OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.09-0.39; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir treatment emerged as associated with reduced risk of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in need of intubation and mortality. Remdesivir-induced bradycardia was not associated with worse outcome.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic as a model to assess the relationship between intercurrent viral infections and disease activity in Multiple Sclerosis: A propensity score matched case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: An association between intercurrent viral respiratory infections and exacerbations of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) disease activity has been proposed by several studies. Considering the rapid spread of SARS-CoV2 worldwide and the systematic effort to immediately detect all incident cases with specific diagnostic tests, the pandemic can represent an interesting experimental model to assess the relationship between viral respiratory infections and MS disease activity. AIMS AND METHODS: In this study, we have performed a propensity score matched case-control study with a prospective clinical/MRI follow-up, on a cohort of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV2 in the period 2020-2022, with the aim to evaluate if the SARS-CoV2 infection influences the short-term risk of disease activity. Controls (RRMS patients not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, using 2019 as the reference period) were matched 1:1 with cases for age, EDSS, sex and disease-modifying treatment (DMT) (moderate efficacy vs high efficacy). Differences in relapses, MRI disease activity and confirmed disabilty worsening (CDW) between cases in the 6 months following the SARS-CoV-2 infection, and controls in a similar 6 months reference period in 2019 were compared. RESULTS: We identified 150 cases of SARS-CoV2 infection in the period March 2020 - March 2022, out of a total population of approximately 1500 MS patients, matched with 150 MS patients not exposed to SARS-CoV2 (controls). Mean age was 40.9 ± 12.0 years in cases and 42.0 ± 10.9 years in controls, mean EDSS was 2.54±1.36 in cases and 2.60±1.32 in controls. All patients were treated with a DMT, and a considerable proportion with a high efficacy DMT (65.3% in cases and 66% in controls), reflecting a typical real world RRMS population. 52.8% of patients in this cohort had been vaccinated with a mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. We did not observe a significant difference in relapses (4.0% cases, 5.3% controls; p = 0.774), MRI disease activity (9.3% cases, 8.0% controls; p = 0.838), CDW (5.3% cases, 6.7% controls; p = 0.782) in the 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection between cases and controls. CONCLUSION: Using a propensity score matching design and including both clinical and MRI data, this study does not suggest an increased risk of MS disease activity following SARS-CoV-2 infection. All MS patients in this cohort were treated with a DMT, and a considerable number with a high efficacy DMT. These results therefore may not be applicable to untreated patients, for which the risk of increased MS disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection may not be excluded. A possible hypothesis explaining these results could be that SARS-CoV2 is less prone, compared to other viruses, to induce exacerbations of MS disease activity; another possible interpretation of these data might be that DMT is able to effectively suppress the increase of disease activity triggered by SARS-CoV2 infection.

Data-driven analysis to understand long COVID using electronic health records from the RECOVER initiative.

Recent studies have investigated post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, or long COVID) using real-world patient data such as electronic health records (EHR). Prior studies have typically been conducted on patient cohorts with specific patient populations which makes their generalizability unclear. This study aims to characterize PASC using the EHR data warehouses from two large Patient-Centered Clinical Research Networks (PCORnet), INSIGHT and OneFlorida+, which include 11 million patients in New York City (NYC) area and 16.8 million patients in Florida respectively. With a high-throughput screening pipeline based on propensity score and inverse probability of treatment weighting, we identified a broad list of diagnoses and medications which exhibited significantly higher incidence risk for patients 30-180 days after the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to non-infected patients. We identified more PASC diagnoses in NYC than in Florida regarding our screening criteria, and conditions including dementia, hair loss, pressure ulcers, pulmonary fibrosis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, chest pain, abnormal heartbeat, malaise, and fatigue, were replicated across both cohorts. Our analyses highlight potentially heterogeneous risks of PASC in different populations.

Effectiveness of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score noninferiority analysis of outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to implement a range of public health measures that disrupted the personal and professional lives of many, including an abrupt adoption of telemental health services. Using data from a nonprofit counseling practice, we tested whether telemental health services delivered during the pandemic were inferior to face-to-face services delivered prior to the pandemic. We first characterized patients seeking therapy services before and during the pandemic to ascertain whether the demographics and presenting concerns of patients pre- and during COVID-19 differed and found that pandemic patients reported greater anxiety, greater overall distress, were more likely female and not partnered, and earned less than before the pandemic. We used a propensity score matching analysis to account for these differences and investigated whether or not telemental health therapy was inferior to face-to-face therapy. Based on the propensity-matched samples (2,180 patients in each condition), telemental health services were found not to be inferior to in-person services, allaying concerns about the effectiveness of telemental health services delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study also illustrates the usefulness of propensity matching for examining treatment effects in naturalistic settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Understanding influencing attributes of COVID-19 vaccine preference and willingness-to-pay among Chinese and American middle-aged and elderly adults: A discrete choice experiment and propensity score matching study.

Background and objective: COVID-19 has imposed burdens on public health systems globally. Owing to the urgency of vaccination, this study aimed at comparing the differences in preference and willingness to pay of COVID-19 vaccine among Chinese and American middle-aged and elderly adults. Methods: A cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions, rating their acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination with and without recommendations from friends, family members or employers (the social cues referred to in our study), and a discrete choice experiment understanding COVID-19 vaccine preference and willingness to pay was conducted to collect data. Propensity score matching was utilized to adjust confounding factors of baseline characteristics and the relative importance of respondents' preference for each attribute and its level was estimated using a conditional logit model. Then, willingness to pay was calculated. Results: In total, 3,494 (2,311 and 1,183 from China and the United States, respectively) completed the questionnaire, among which 3,444 questionnaires were effective. After propensity score matching, 1,604 respondents with 802 from the US and 802 from China were included. Under the influence of the social cues, Chinese respondents' vaccine acceptance decreased from 71.70 to 70.70%, while American respondents' vaccine acceptance increased from 74.69 to 75.81%. The discrete choice experiment showed that American respondents regarded the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine as the most important attribute, whereas Chinese respondents attached the highest importance to the cost of vaccination. But overall, the COVID-19 vaccine with the higher efficacy, the milder adverse effect, the lower cost, and the longer duration will promote the preference of the public in both countries. Additionally, the public were willing to spend the most money for a reduction in COVID-19 vaccine adverse effect from moderate to very mild (37.476USD for the United States, 140.503USD for China), followed by paying for the 1% improvement in its efficacy and paying for the one-month extension of its duration. Conclusion: Given the impact of social cues on vaccine acceptance, Chinese government should promote reasonable vaccine-related information to improve national vaccination acceptance. Meanwhile, considering the influence of COVID-19 attributes on public preference and willingness to pay, regulating the vaccine pricing, improving the efficacy of the vaccine, reducing its adverse effect, and prolonging the duration of the vaccine works will contribute to vaccine uptake.

A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study of hysterectomies for benign disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate how the pandemic might have affected the number of elective and urgent hysterectomies for benign gynecological pathologies in a single-care tertiary center in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, and to identify if there were any changes in the need for blood transfusions. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study. It involved all non-puerperal and non-oncological hysterectomies from October 2018 to July 2021. Patients were divided into two groups, namely, the pandemic group (46 patients) and the control group (92 patients). Data were collected by reviewing the physical and electronic patient records. We carried out the statistical analysis using the RStudio software. RESULTS: The number of planned hysterectomies was 82 in the pre-pandemic group and 23 in the analysis group, representing a 71.9% decrease. When considering only urgent surgeries, 10 of them happened in the pre-pandemic group, while 23 occurred in the pandemic group, representing an increase of 130%. CONCLUSION: Elective hysterectomies may improve the quality of life of women, reducing abnormal bleeding and pelvic pain. Treatment delay can worsen patients' physiological and biological conditions, such as lower labor production, humor, and social aspects, increasing costs to the healthcare system.

Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists and Proton Pump Inhibitors Are Associated With Reduced Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Without Comorbidities Including Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia: A Propensity Score-Matched Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify the effect of histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the positivity rate and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching using medical claims data and general health examination results from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 January and 4 June 2020 were included. Patients who were prescribed H2RA or PPI within 1 year of the test date were defined as H2RA and PPI users, respectively. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and the secondary outcome was the instance of severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including death, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation administration. RESULTS: Among 59,094 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 21,711 were H2RA users, 12,426 were PPI users, and 24,957 were non-users. After propensity score matching, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in H2RA users (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.98) and PPI users (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) compared to non-users. In patients with comorbidities including diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, the effect of H2RA and PPI against SARS-CoV-2 infection was not significant, whereas the protective effect was maintained in patients without such comorbidities. Risk of severe clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients showed no difference between users and non-users after propensity score matching either in H2RA users (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.54) or PPI users (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.60-2.51). CONCLUSION: H2RA and PPI use is associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but does not affect clinical outcome. Comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia seem to offset the protective effect of H2RA and PPI.

Is metformin use associated with low mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus hospitalized for COVID-19? a multivariable and propensity score-adjusted meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new pandemic that the entire world is facing since December of 2019. Increasing evidence has shown that metformin is linked to favorable outcomes in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to address whether outpatient or inpatient metformin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with low in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched studies published in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library up to November 1, 2022. Raw event data extracted from individual study were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel approach. Odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for covariates that potentially confound the association using multivariable regression or propensity score matching was pooled by the inverse-variance method. Random effect models were applied for meta-analysis due to variance among studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two retrospective observational studies were selected. The pooled unadjusted OR for outpatient metformin therapy and in-hospital mortality was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37-0.62) and the pooled OR adjusted with multivariable regression or propensity score matching was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.50-0.99). The pooled unadjusted OR for inpatient metformin therapy and in-hospital mortality was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.10-0.31), whereas the pooled adjusted HR was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.38-3.15). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is a significant association between the reduction of in-hospital mortality and outpatient metformin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Sotrovimab in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection: a Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.

In vitro data suggest the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab may have lost inhibitory capability against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. We aimed to provide real-life data on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. We retrospectively analyzed patients who were treated at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, between December 2021 and June 2022. Out of all 1,254 patients, 185 were treated with sotrovimab: 147 patients received sotrovimab monotherapy, and 38 received combination treatment with sotrovimab and remdesivir. We compared in-hospital mortality for the different treatment regimens for patients treated on regular wards and the intensive care unit separately and performed propensity score matching by age, sex, comorbidities, immunosuppression, and additional dexamethasone treatment to select patients who did not receive antiviral treatment for comparison. No difference in in-hospital mortality was observed between any of the treatment groups and the respective control groups. These findings underline that sotrovimab adds no clinical benefit for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infections. IMPORTANCE This study shows that among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection at risk of disease progression, treatment with sotrovimab alone or in combination with remdesivir did not decrease in-hospital mortality. These real-world clinical findings in combination with previous in vitro data about lacking neutralizing activity of sotrovimab against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant do not support sotrovimab as a treatment option in these patients.

Impact of health insurance coverage on health care utilization during COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score matched survey analysis in a target region in India.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance is considered as a mechanism to accelerate the progress towards universal health coverage and ensure financial risk protection for households throughout the country. There is a growing body of evidence reporting that the health insurance coverage can significantly improve the access and utilization of healthcare services. Hence, we attempted to determine the impact of health insurance on the utilization of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in rural Tamil Nadu. The primary data collection was conducted during November 2021. We employed a multi-stage stratified random sampling technique. Propensity score matching analysis was performed using radius matching method at 0.05 calliper to estimate the following parameters: average treatment effect (ATE), average treatment effect on treated (ATT), and average treatment effect on untreated (ATU). RESULTS: In total, 2390 participants were included. Almost two-third belonged to 18-45 years with almost equal distribution of males and females. Only 13.6% were covered by health insurance. Healthcare utilization was significantly higher among participants with health insurance (55.2%) compared to participants without coverage (42.5%). The ATT values in intervention and control group were 0.55 and 0.46 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the ATU values in intervention and control group were 0.42 and 0.51. The ATE value was 0.08. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the health insurance coverage had significant impact on utilization of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic. Further longitudinal research exploring the effect of different forms of health insurance for improving access and utilization of healthcare services can be undertaken.

Suicidal ideation following self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms or serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in France: A propensity score weighted analysis from a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A higher risk of suicidal ideation associated with self-report of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like symptoms or COVID-19 infection has been observed in cross-sectional studies, but evidence from longitudinal studies remains limited. The aims of this study were 2-fold: (1) to explore if self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020 were associated with suicidal ideation in 2021; (2) to explore if the association also existed when using a biological marker of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in 2020. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 52,050 participants from the French EpiCov cohort were included (median follow-up time = 13.7 months). In terms of demographics, 53.84% were women, 60.92% were over 45 years old, 82.01% were born in mainland France from parents born in mainland France, and 59.38% completed high school. COVID-19-like symptoms were defined as participant report of a sudden loss of taste/smell or fever alongside cough, shortness of breath, or chest oppression, between February and November 2020. Symptoms were self-reported at baseline in May 2020 and at the first follow-up in Autumn 2020. Serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 was derived from Spike protein ELISA test screening in dried-blood-spot samples. Samples were collected from October 2020 to March 2021, with 94.4% collected in 2020. Suicidal ideation since December 2020 was self-reported at the second follow-up in Summer 2021. Associations of self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms and serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 with suicidal ideation in 2021 were ascertained using modified Poisson regression models, weighted by inverse probability weights computed from propensity scores. Among the 52,050 participants, 1.68% [1.54% to 1.82%] reported suicidal ideation in 2021, 9.57% [9.24% to 9.90%] had a serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020, and 13.23% [12.86% to 13.61%] reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020. Self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020 were associated with higher risks of later suicidal ideation in 2021 (Relative Riskipw [95% CI] = 1.43 [1.20 to 1.69]), while serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 was not (RRipw = 0.89 [0.70 to 1.13]). Limitations of this study include the use of a single question to assess suicidal ideation, the use of self-reported history of mental health disorders, and limited generalizability due to attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020, but not serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020, were associated with a higher risk of subsequent suicidal ideation in 2021. The exact role of SARS-CoV-2 infection with respect to suicide risk has yet to be clarified. Including mental health resources in COVID-19-related settings could encourage symptomatic individuals to care for their mental health and limit suicidal ideation to emerge or worsen.

Characteristics of 12-Month Readmission for Hospitalized Patients with COPD: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Prospective Multicenter Study.

Purpose: Hospitalization for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is considered as severe exacerbations. Readmission for severe exacerbations is a crucial event for COPD patients. However, factors associated with readmission for severe exacerbations are incomplete. The study aimed to investigate different characteristics between the severe and non-severe exacerbation groups. Patients and Methods: Patients hospitalized for severe AECOPD were included in multi-centers, and their exacerbations in next 12 months after discharge were recorded. According to exacerbations, patients were separated into the severe-exacerbation group and the non-severe exacerbation group. Propensity-score matching (PSM) and multivariable analyses were performed to compare the baseline characteristics of two groups. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test and receiver operating characteristic curve were applied to evaluate how well the model could identify clusters. Results: The cohort included 550 patients with severe AECOPD across 27 study centers in China, and 465 patients were finally analyzed. A total of 41.5% of patients underwent readmission for AECOPD within 1 year. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups after PSM. Severe exacerbations in the 12 months were related to some factors, eg, the duration of COPD (13 vs 8 years, P<0.001), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score (20 vs 17, P<0.001), the blood eosinophil percentage (1.5 vs 2.0, P<0.05), and their inhaler therapies. Patients readmitted with AECOPD had a longer time of diagnosis (≥9 years), more symptoms (CAT ≥10), and lower blood eosinophils (Eos <2%). A clinical model was derived to help identify patients at risk of readmission with severe exacerbations. Conclusion: These analyses confirmed the relevance of COPD at admission with future severe exacerbations. A lower blood eosinophils percentage appears to be related to readmission when combined with clinical history. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this study can predict the risk of exacerbations.

High-dose intravenous anakinra treatment is safe and effective in severe and critical COVID-19 patients: a propensity score-matched study in a single center.

BACKGROUND: In COVID-19, severe disease course such as need of intensive care unit (ICU) as well as development of mortality is mainly due to cytokine storm. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the high-dose intravenous anakinra treatment response and outcome in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 compared to standard of care. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was carried out at a tertiary referral center. The study population consisted of two groups as follows: the patients receiving high-dose intravenous anakinra (anakinra group) between 01.09.2021 and 01.02.2022 and the patients treated with standard of care (SoC, control group) as historical control group who were hospitalized between 01.07.2021 and 01.09.2021. RESULTS: After the propensity score 1:1 matching, 79 patients in anakinra and 79 patients in SoC matched and were included into the analysis. Mean ± SD patient age was 67.4 ± 16.7 and 67.1 ± 16.3 years in anakinra and SoC groups, respectively (p = 0.9). Male gender was 38 (48.7%) in anakinra and 36 (46.2%) in SoC (p = 0.8). Overall, ICU admission was in 14.1% (n = 11) and 30.8% (n = 24) (p = 0.013; OR 6.2), intubation in 12.8% (n = 10) and 16.7% (n = 13) patients (p = 0.5), and 14.1% (n = 11) and 32.1% (n = 25) patients died in anakinra and control groups, respectively (p = 0.008; OR 7.1). CONCLUSION: In our study, mortality was lower in patients receiving anakinra compared to SoC. Intravenous high-dose anakinra is safe and effective treatment in patients with severe and critical COVID-19.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Characteristics and outcomes of US Veterans at least 65 years of age at high risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without receipt of oral antiviral agents.

OBJECTIVES: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir each became available in the United States (US) through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) in December 2021 after their respective initial prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrated efficacy for patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection considered to be at high risk for progression of disease and hospitalization. Although sufficiently powered for this wide group, the mean age for patients in these studies was only 43 and 46 years of age, respectively. We sought to compare outcomes of US Veterans 65 years and older who received either of these oral antivirals to those who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. METHODS: The current project was a retrospective, observational, nationwide propensity-matched analysis comparing outcomes of US Veterans 65 years and older who received either of these oral antivirals to US Veterans 65 years and older who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. RESULTS: The composite primary outcome of admission or death within 30 days of diagnosis was reached less often in those receiving either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus those that received no antiviral (65/1370 [4.75%] vs. 139/1370 [10.2%]; odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60, p<0.0001). Baseline differences between Veterans selected for molnupiravir vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy were noted, particularly in the number of concomitant medications with cautions or contraindications with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients 65 years of age and older. Patients with higher medication caution and contraindication burdens to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are selected for molnupiravir therapy, which in the absence of a prospective head-to-head trial, may limit any efforts to compare the effectiveness of the two drugs.