Performance of point-of-care severity scores to predict prognosis in patients admitted through the emergency department with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Identifying COVID-19 patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes is critical in emergency department (ED) presentation. Sepsis risk stratification scores can be calculated quickly for COVID-19 patients but have not been evaluated in a large cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether well-known risk scores can predict poor outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with COVID-19 to 156 Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Healthcare EDs, March 2, 2020, to February 11, 2021. INTERVENTION: Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Shock Index, National Early Warning System-2 (NEWS2), and quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI) at presentation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors receipt. Patients scored positive with qSOFA ≥ 2, Shock Index > 0.7, NEWS2 ≥ 5, and qCSI ≥ 4. Test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 90,376 patients with community-acquired COVID-19 (mean age 64.3 years, 46.8% female). 17.2% of patients died in-hospital, 28.6% went to the ICU, 13.7% received mechanical ventilation, and 13.6% received vasopressors. There were 3.8% qSOFA-positive, 45.1% Shock Index-positive, 49.8% NEWS2-positive, and 37.6% qCSI-positive at ED-triage. NEWS2 exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.593, confidence interval [CI]: 0.588-0.597), ICU admission (0.602, CI: 0.599-0.606), mechanical ventilation (0.614, CI: 0.610-0.619), and vasopressor receipt (0.600, CI: 0.595-0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis severity scores at presentation have low discriminative power to predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients and are not reliable for clinical use. Severity scores should be developed using features that accurately predict poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients to develop more effective risk-based triage.

Thromboprophylaxis in people hospitalized with COVID-19: Assessing intermediate or standard doses in a retrospective cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses. Methods: We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22-3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates. Conclusions: Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Real-World Effectiveness of Remdesivir in Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death. RESULTS: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in hospitalized solid organ transplant recipients compared to a matched cohort of non-transplant patients at a national healthcare system in the United States.

Data describing outcomes of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are variable, and the association between SOT status and mortality remains unclear. In this study, we compare clinical outcomes of SOT recipients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 10, and September 1, 2020, to a matched cohort of non-SOT recipients at a national healthcare system in the United States (US). From a population of 43 461 hospitalized COVID-19-positive patients, we created a coarsened exact matched cohort of 4035 patients including 128 SOT recipients and 3907 weighted matched non-SOT controls. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate association between SOT status and clinical outcomes. Among the 4035 patients, median age was 60 years, 61.7% were male, 21.9% were Black/African American, and 50.8% identified as Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Patients with a history of SOT were more likely to die within the study period when compared to matched non-SOT recipients (21.9% and 14.9%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-3.15). Moreover, SOT status was associated with increased odds of receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (OR [95% CI]: 2.34 [1.51-3.65]), developing acute kidney injury (OR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.59-3.65]), and receiving vasopressor support during hospitalization (OR [95% CI]: 2.14 [1.31-3.48]).