COPD, but Not Asthma, Is Associated with Worse Outcomes in COVID-19: Real-Life Data from Four Main Centers in Northwest Italy.

Introduction: Asthma, along with inhaled steroids, was initially considered a risk factor for worse clinical outcomes in COVID-19. This was related to the higher morbidity observed in asthma patients during previous viral outbreaks. This retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prevalence of asthma among patients admitted due to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the impact of inhaled therapies on their outcomes. Furthermore, a comparison between patients with asthma, COPD and the general population was made. Methods: All COVID-19 inpatients were recruited between February and July 2020 from four large hospitals in Northwest Italy. Data concerning medical history, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the hospital stay, including length, drugs and COVID-19 complications (respiratory failure, lung involvement, and the need for respiratory support) were collected, as well as the type of discharge. Results: patients with asthma required high-flow oxygen therapy (33.3 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (17.9 vs. 9.5%, p = 0.048) more frequently when compared to the general population, but no other difference was observed. Moreover, asthma patients were generally younger than patients with COPD (59.2 vs. 76.8 years, p < 0.001), they showed both a lower mortality rate (15.4 vs. 39.4%, p < 0.001) and a lower CCI (3.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.001). Patients with asthma in regular therapy with ICS at home had significantly shorter hospital stay compared to those with no treatments (25.2 vs. 11.3 days, p = 0.024). Discussion: Our study showed that asthma is not associated with worse outcomes of COVID-19, despite the higher need for respiratory support compared with the general population, while the use of ICS allowed for a shorter hospital stay. In addition, the comparison of asthma with COPD patients confirmed the greater frailty of the latter, according to their multiple comorbidities.

CORonavirus-19 mild to moderate pneumonia Management with blood Ozonization in patients with Respiratory failure (CORMOR) multicentric prospective randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following positive experience on the use of blood ozonation in SARS-CoV-2, the CORMOR randomized trial was designed to evaluate the adjuvant role of oxygen/ozone therapy in mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. METHODS: The trial (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04388514) was conducted in four different Italian centers (April-October 2020). Patients were treated according to best available standard of care (SoC) therapy, with or without O3-autohemotherapy (O3-AHT). RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were enrolled: SoC + O3-AHT (48 patients) were compared to the SoC treatment (44 patients). The two groups differed in steroids therapy administration (72.7% in SoC arm vs. 50.0% in O3-AHT arm; p = 0.044). Steroid therapy was routinely started when it was subsequently deemed as effective for the treatment of COVID-19 disease. No significant differences in mortality rates, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation requirement and ICU admission were observed. Clinical improvement in patients with pneumonia was assessed according to a specifically designed score (decrease in SIMEU class, improvement in radiology imaging, improvement in PaO2/FiO2, reduction in LDH and requirement of oxygen therapy ≤ 5 days). Score assessment was performed on day-3 (T3) and day-7 (TEnd) of O3-AHT treatment. A significant increase in the score was reported at TEnd, in the O3-AHT treatment arm (0 [0-1] in the SoC arm vs. 2 [1-3] the O3-AHT arm; p = 0.018). No adverse events related O3-AHT treatment was observed. CONCLUSION: In mild-to-moderate pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, adjuvant oxygen/ozone therapy did not show any effect on mortality, or mechanical intubation but show a clinical improvement a day 7 from randomization in a composite clinical endpoint. Larger Randomized prospective studies alone or in combination with steroids are needed to confirm our results.

Real-world management of atrial fibrillation in Internal Medicine units: the FADOI 'FALP' observational study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent arrhythmia, but few data are available on patients' characteristics and management in the context of Internal Medicine wards. METHODS: Data were collected at the beginning of 2010 in 18 Internal Medicine units of the regions Liguria and Piemonte (Italy). Each centre reviewed the hospital charts of the last 50 patients discharged during the year 2009 in whom a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation had been made (patient's history or during the hospitalization). RESULTS: A total of 903 atrial fibrillation patients were evaluated. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation among patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine units was 18.2%. More than 85% of patients had at least two diseases other than atrial fibrillation, and 'lone' atrial fibrillation was rare (1.3%). During hospital stay, 80.5% of the patients received at least one treatment for atrial fibrillation: 55.5% received an antithrombotic and 61.8% a drug for arrhythmia, mostly aimed at rate control (47.2%). In-hospital all-cause mortality was 13.4%. At discharge, 70.2 and 68.9% of the patients received prescription of a drug for arrhythmia and for antithrombotic treatment, respectively. Prescription of oral anticoagulants was significantly associated with hypertension, while previous bleeding, age above 75 years, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, male sex and a number of concomitant drugs of more than four were strong negative predictors. CONCLUSION: Data from our study confirm that atrial fibrillation is a common finding in patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine units, and this population is characterized by multiple comorbidities and severe prognosis. Discrepancies exist between recommendations by guidelines and real-world management, owing to the complexity of patients and limits of existing treatment strategies.