A retrospective analysis of malnutrition risk, nutritional support and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The association between obesity and disease severity in COVID-19 has been reported, whilst the impact of undernutrition remains less well-defined. Here we describe nutritional risk profiles of consecutive COVID-19 hospital inpatients, together with clinical outcomes and the impact of nutritional therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of adult inpatients admitted to University College London Hospital between February and July 2020 with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Data were extracted from electronic health records and compared to a control group of consecutive patients admitted between March and April 2019. COVID-19 patients were classified as at low, moderate or high nutritional risk according to a local nutritional screening tool on admission. Data relating to demographics, nutritional therapy and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between nutritional risk groups. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of the COVID-19 group were found to be at high nutritional risk (132/381, 34.6% vs. 105/468, 22.4%; p < 0.0001). Within the COVID-19 group, multivariate analysis showed that those at moderate and high nutritional risk had increased odds of having an above-average peak CRP (p = 0.004) and a below-average nadir albumin (p = 0.0002). Inpatient length of stay was on average 5.8 days longer for COVID-19 patients at moderate and high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (p = 0.0008). COVID-19 patients at moderate nutritional risk on admission had a higher proportion of ICU admissions (28/89, 31.5% vs. 32/160, 20.0%; p = 0.01). Mortality was significantly worse in COVID-19 patients at high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (52/132, 39.4% vs. 24/160, 15.0%; p < 0.0001). Prescription of enteral nutrition in ward-based COVID-19 patients at high nutritional risk was associated with lower inpatient mortality (20/67, 29.9% vs. 22/38, 57.9%; p = 0.009). In crude analysis, the 30-day mortality rate post-discharge was higher in those at moderate and high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (13/151, 8.6% vs. 4/136, 2.9%, p < 0.05). Amongst patients at high nutritional risk, nutritional therapy was less common amongst non-white patients compared to white patients (12/29, 41.4% vs. 46/66, 70.0%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Patients admitted with COVID-19 were at significant risk of undernutrition, which was associated with adverse clinical outcomes in our study. This risk was reduced by simple nutritional interventions. Mortality amongst patients at high nutritional risk persisted beyond discharge, suggesting close nutritional follow up in the period following hospital admission is warranted.

Adalimumab or etanercept as first line biologic therapy in enthesitis related arthritis (ERA) - a drug-survival single centre study spanning 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse and compare drug-survival of adalimumab and etanercept (and their biosimilars) in biologic-naïve patients with ERA (Enthesitis-Related Arthritis). METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, conventional statistics and machine-learning were applied to compare drug-survival (adalimumab, etanercept and their biosimilars initiated: 2009-2019) in ERA and identify determinants. The primary outcome was discontinuation of treatment due to primary- or secondary-failure and adverse drug-reactions. RESULTS: During the observation period, 99 of 188 patients with ERA on first-line TNF inhibitors (etanercept-n=108, adalimumab-n=80) discontinued their treatment (median survival-time 3.9years, 95%CI 2.6-4.9years). Adalimumab was associated with longer drug-survival compared to etanercept especially after an initial positive response, with the median time to treatment discontinuation 4.9years (95% CI 3.9-5.7) for adalimumab, compared to 2years (95%CI 1.4-4.0) for etanercept (HR of treatment-discontinuation-0.49, 95%CI 0.32--0.75, p=0.001). Adjusted by propensity-score, adalimumab-methotrexate combination was associated with longer drug survival, compared to adalimumab-monotherapy (HR-0.41, 95%CI 0.20-0.85), etanercept-monotherapy (HR-0.28, 95%CI 0.15-0.53), and etanercept-methotrexate combination (HR-0.39, 95%CI 0.21-0.73). The presence of HLA-B27 was associated with longer drug-survival (HR-0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.87) following an initial positive response. Higher-CRP at baseline was associated with higher rate of primary-failure (HR-1.68, 95%CI 1.08-2.62). Axial-ERA (sacroiliitis±spinal-involvement) was associated with poorer drug-survival for both primary- and secondary-failure (overall HR-2.03, 95%CI 1.22-3.40). Adjusted by propensity-score, shorter drug-survival was observed in patients with baseline-CRP≥12.15 mg/L, but only in the context of axial-ERA, not in peripheral-ERA (no sacroiliitis/spinal-involvement) (HR-2.28, 95%CI 1.13--3.64). CONCLUSION: Following an initial positive primary response, continuing methotrexate with adalimumab was associated with the longest drug-survival compared to adalimumab-monotherapy or etanercept-based regimens. Axial-ERA was associated with a poorer drug-survival. A CRP >12.15 in patients with axial-ERA was associated with a higher rate of primary-failure. Further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.