Impact of Body Mass Index on COVID-19-Related In-Hospital Outcomes and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of obesity around the globe, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at an increased risk of devastating complications. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of basal metabolic index (body mass index (BMI)) with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 176 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. The mean age was 62.2 years, with 51% being male patients. The mean BMI for non-surviving patients was significantly higher compared to patients surviving on the seventh day of hospitalization (35 vs. 30 kg/m2, P = 0.022). Similarly, patients requiring IMV had a higher BMI (33 vs. 29, P = 0.002) compared to non-intubated patients. The unadjusted OR for patients with a higher BMI requiring IMV (56% vs. 28%, OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.6 - 7.0, P = 0.002) and upgrade to ICU (46% vs. 28%, OR; 2.2, 1.07 - 4.6, P = 0.04) were significantly higher compared to patients with a lower BMI. Similarly, patients with a higher BMI had higher in-hospital mortality (21% vs. 9%, OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3 - 8.2, P = 0.01) compared to patients with a normal BMI. Despite a numerical advantage in the lower BMI group, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the need for dialysis (5% vs. 13%, OR: 3.8, 13% vs. 4%, 1.1 - 14.1, P = 0.07). aORs controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications mirrored the overall results, except for the need to upgrade to ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with confirmed COVID-19, morbid obesity serves as an independent risk factor of high in-hospital mortality and the need for IMV.

Declining Intensive Care Unit Mortality of COVID-19: A Multi-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality has waned significantly over time; however, factors contributing towards this reduction largely remain unidentified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the trend in mortality at our large tertiary academic health system and factors contributing to this trend. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and August 2020 admitted across 14 hospitals in the Philadelphia area. Collected data included demographics, comorbidities, admission risk of mortality score, laboratory values, medical interventions, survival outcomes, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition. Chi-square (χ2) test, Fisher exact test, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, multinomial logistic regression models, independent sample t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,204 patients were included. Overall mortality was 39%. Mortality declined significantly from 46% in March to 14% in August 2020 (P < 0.05). The most common underlying comorbidities were hypertension (60.2%), diabetes mellitus (44.7%), dyslipidemia (31.6%) and congestive heart failure (14.7%). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use was more commonly associated with the patients who died, while the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, steroids and duration of these medications were not significantly different. Peak values of ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-dimer levels were significantly higher in patients who died (P < 0.05). The mean hospital LOS was significantly longer in the patients who survived compared to the patients who died (18 vs. 12, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of patients admitted to our ICU system significantly decreased over time. Factors that may have contributed to this may be the result of a better understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology and treatments. Further research is needed to elucidate the factors contributing to a reduction in the mortality rate for this patient population.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19: a single-center retrospective study.

Introduction: COVID-19 induces a pro-thrombotic state as evidenced by microvascular thrombi in the renal and pulmonary vasculature. Therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 has been debated and data remain anecdotal. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that therapeutic anticoagulation is associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute renal failure necessitating dialysis by decreasing the over-all clot burden. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done to determine the impact of therapeutic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) respectively. Results: A total of 176 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were divided into two groups, therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. The mean age, baseline comorbidities and other medications used during hospitalization were similar in both groups. The aOR for in-hospital mortality (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.15-8.10, p = 0.04), upgrade to intensive care (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.43-6.64, p = 0.006) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.95-9.34, p = 0.00) were significantly lower while there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of developing acute renal failure (OR 1.87 95% CI 0.46-7.63, p = 0.64) between two groups. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19, therapeutic anticoagulation offers a significant reduction in the rate of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, and invasive mechanical ventilation. It should be preferred over prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients unless randomized controlled trials prove otherwise.

Predictability of CRP and D-Dimer levels for in-hospital outcomes and mortality of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic inflammation elicited by a cytokine storm is considered a hallmark of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to assess the clinical utility of the C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-Dimer levels for predicting in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of CRP and D-Dimer with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. On presentation, the unadjusted odds for the need of IMV (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.8, p = 0.012) and upgrade to ICU (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5, p = 0.002) were significantly higher for patients with CRP (>101 mg/dl). Similarly, the unadjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in patients with high CRP (>101 mg/dl) and high D-Dimer (>501 ng/ml), compared to corresponding low CRP (<100 mg/dl) and low D-Dimer (<500 ng/ml) groups on day-7 (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2-10.5, p = 0.03 and OR 10.0, 95% CI 1.2-77.9, p = 0.02), respectively. Both high D-Dimer (>501 ng/ml) and high CRP (>101 mg/dl) were associated with increased need for upgrade to the ICU and higher requirement for IMV on day-7 of hospitalization. A multivariate regression model mirrored the overall unadjusted trends except that adjusted odds for IMV were high in the high CRP group on day 7 (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.05-6.0, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: CRP value greater than 100 mg/dL and D-dimer levels higher than 500 ng/ml during hospitalization might predict higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Higher levels at presentation might indicate impending clinical deterioration and the need for IMV.

Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); however, recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended against routine use of HCQ outside of study protocols citing possible adverse outcomes. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched to identify articles on COVID-19. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate the safety and efficacy of HCQ on a random effect model. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 3,912 patients (HCQ 2,512 and control 1400) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR: 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58 - 3.13, P value < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients on HCQ compared to patients on control agent. The response to therapy assessed by negative repeat polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 0.50 - 6.75, P = 0.36), radiological resolution (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.47 - 8.36, P value = 0.36) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.34 - 4.33, P value = 0.76) were identical between the two groups. Overall, four times higher odds of net adverse events (NAEs) were observed in the HCQ group (OR: 4.59, 95% CI 1.73 - 12.20, P value = 0.02). The measures for individual safety endpoints were also numerically lower in the control arm; however, none of these values reached the level of statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: HCQ might offer no benefits in terms of decreasing the viral load and radiological improvement in patients with COVID-19. HCQ appears to be associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality and NAEs.

Is therapeutic anticoagulation improving renal outcomes in COVID-19?

We present three patients with COVID-19 who developed acute renal failure during hospitalization and were seen to have an improvement in their kidney function after being started on therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin (Target PTT 58-93 seconds) for varying indications (atrial fibrillation, popliteal vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism). Their kidney functions improved significantly following anticoagulation with a clear temporal relationship between the former and latter. Anticoagulation was held for one patient due to concern of gastrointestinal bleeding and his kidney functions worsened a day after stopping anticoagulation. D-dimer levels also improved with anticoagulation but the trend of other inflammatory markers remained unpredictable.

Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Tocilizumab in Patients With COVID-19: Single-Center Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and tocilizumab (TCZ); however, evidence on their efficacy and safety have been controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall clinical effectiveness of HCQ and TCZ in patients with COVID-19. We hypothesize that HCQ and TCZ use in these patients will be associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the impact of HCQ and TCZ use on hard clinical outcomes during hospitalization. A total of 176 hospitalized patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis was included. Patients were divided into two comparison groups: (1) HCQ (n=144) vs no-HCQ (n=32) and (2) TCZ (n=32) vs no-TCZ (n=144). The mean age, baseline comorbidities, and other medications used during hospitalization were uniformly distributed among all the groups. Independent t tests and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs, respectively. RESULTS: The unadjusted odds ratio for patients upgraded to a higher level of care (ie, intensive care unit) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.19-5.69; P=.003) and reductions in C-reactive protein (CRP) level on day 7 of hospitalization (21% vs 56%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.55; P=.002) were significantly higher in the TCZ group compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure necessitating dialysis, or discharge from the hospital after recovery in both the HCQ and TCZ groups compared to their respective control groups. Adjusted odds ratios controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications closely followed the unadjusted estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with COVID-19, neither HCQ nor TCZ offered a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. These results are similar to the recently published preliminary results of the HCQ arm of the Recovery trial, which showed no clinical benefit from the use of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (the TCZ arm is ongoing). Double-blinded randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the impact of these drugs in larger patient samples so that data-driven guidelines can be deduced to combat this global pandemic.

Lymphocyte-to-C-Reactive Protein Ratio: A Novel Predictor of Adverse Outcomes in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic inflammation elicited by a cytokine storm is considered a hallmark of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to assess the validity and clinical utility of the lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein (CRP) ratio (LCR), typically used for gastric carcinoma prognostication, versus the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for predicting in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of LCR and NLR with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. RESULTS: The mean age for NLR patients was 63.6 versus 61.6, and for LCR groups, it was 62.6 versus 63.7 years, respectively. The baseline comorbidities across all groups were comparable except that the higher LCR group had female predominance. The mean NLR was significantly higher for patients who died during hospitalization (19 vs. 7, P ≤ 0.001) and those requiring IMV (12 vs. 7, P = 0.01). Compared to alive patients, a significantly lower mean LCR was observed in patients who did not survive hospitalization (1,011 vs. 632, P = 0.04). For patients with a higher NLR (> 10), the unadjusted odds of mortality (odds ratios (ORs) 11.0, 3.6 - 33.0, P < 0.0001) and need for IMV (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4 - 7.7, P = 0.008) were significantly higher compared to patients with lower NLR. By contrast, for patients with lower LCR (< 100), the odds of in-hospital all-cause mortality were significantly higher compared to patients with a higher LCR (OR 0.2, 0.06 - 0.47, P = 0.001). The aORs controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications mirrored the overall results, indicating a genuinely significant correlation between these biomarkers and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A high NLR and decreased LCR value predict higher odds of in-hospital mortality. A high LCR at presentation might indicate impending clinical deterioration and the need for IMV.