ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Community-Acquired Infections , Pneumonia , Aged , Cohort Studies , Community-Acquired Infections/diagnosis , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pneumonia/diagnosis , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the last 10 years enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) has become an alternative for the treatment of patients with Hunter disease (HD). Nevertheless, the information regarding efficacy and safety is scarce and mainly based on the pivotal trials. This scarcity is especially evident for adults and severe forms of HD. METHODS: A systematic review of publications in the electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central was undertaken. Clinical trials and observational studies were included. The data about efficacy and security were retrieved and analysed with Review Manager version 5.3. RESULTS: 677 records were found, 559 remaining after the removal of duplicates. By title and abstract review, 427 were excluded. Full reading of the rest was made (122 publications) and 42 were finally included. It was not possible to perform meta-analysis of all the endpoints due to high heterogeneity in the reporting and measuring of variables in each publication. Eight clinical trials were included, 6 with high risk of bias. The quality of the other studies was low in 12%, average in 68% and good in 21%. Main findings were: a reduction in the elimination of glycosaminoglycans (GAG) in urine in all the studies (26/26), decrease in liver and spleen size (18/18), increase of 52.59 m (95% CI, 36, 42-68.76, p < .001) in the 6-min walk test (TM6M), increase in forced vital capacity (FVC) of 9.59% (95% CI 4.77-14.51, p < .001), reduction of the left ventricular mass index of 3.57% (95% CI 1.2-5.93) and reduction in mortality (OR) of 0.44 (0.27-0.71). DISCUSSION: The data suggests a clear and consistent effect of ERT in HD reducing the accumulation of GAGs in the body, demonstrated by the reduction of its urinary excretion, as well as by the reduction of its deposits (spleen, liver and heart). Likewise, there is an improvement in physical and respiratory function. In addition, a reduction in mortality has been observed. Lack of studies, small size of the samples, and methodological deficiencies are the main limitations to establish definite conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggests that ERT is effective and safe in the treatment of HD. There is a need to evaluate patient-centred outcomes and the impact on quality of life.
