Biological age is superior to chronological age in predicting hospital mortality of the critically ill.

Biological age is increasingly recognized as being more accurate than chronological age in determining chronic health outcomes. This study assessed whether biological age, assessed on intensive care unit (ICU) admission, can predict hospital mortality. This retrospective cohort study, conducted in a tertiary multidisciplinary ICU in Western Australia, used the Levine PhenoAge model to estimate each patient's biological age (also called PhenoAge). Each patient's PhenoAge was calibrated to generate a regression residual which was equivalent to biological age unexplained by chronological age in the local context. PhenoAgeAccel was a dichotomized measure of the residuals, and its presence suggested that one was biologically older than the corresponding chronological age. Of the 2950 critically ill adult patients analyzed, 291 died (9.9%) before hospital discharge. Both PhenoAge and its residuals (after regressing on chronological age) had a significantly better ability to differentiate between hospital survivors and non-survivors than chronological age (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve 0.648 and 0.654 vs. 0.547 respectively). Being phenotypically older than one's chronological age was associated with an increased risk of mortality (PhenoAgeAccel hazard ratio [HR] 1.997, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.568-2.542; p = 0.001) in a dose-related fashion and did not reach a plateau until at least a 20-year gap. This adverse association remained significant (adjusted HR 1.386, 95% CI 1.077-1.784; p = 0.011) after adjusted for severity of acute illness and comorbidities. PhenoAgeAccel was more prevalent among those with pre-existing chronic cardiovascular disease, end-stage renal failure, cirrhosis, immune disease, diabetes mellitus, or those treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Being phenotypically older than one's chronological age was more common among those with comorbidities, and this was associated with an increased risk of mortality in a dose-related fashion in the critically ill that was not fully explained by comorbidities and severity of acute illness.

Different COVID-19 treatments' impact on hospital length of stay.

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 has adversely affected global healthcare infrastructure since 2019. Currently, there are no large-scale published reports on the efficacy of combination therapy of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: Is the combination therapy of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab superior to other treatments on hospitalized COVID-19 patients? DESIGN: This is a retrospective, comparative effectiveness study. SETTING: Single-center study PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS: We analyzed different inpatient COVID-19 treatment options available in the United States and their impact on hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality. Hospitalized COVID-19 were categorized as "mild," "moderate" and "severe'' based on the highest level of oxygen required; room air, nasal cannula, or high flow/PAP/intubation, respectively. Patients were treated in accordance with the availability of medications and the latest treatment guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES: The endpoints of the study are hospital discharges and death during hospitalization. RESULTS: 1233 COVID-19 patients were admitted from 2020 to 2021. No treatment combinations showed a statistically significant decrease in hospital LOS in mild COVID-19 patients (p = 0.186). In moderate patients, the combination of remdesivir and dexamethasone slightly decreased LOS by 1 day (p = 0.007). In severe patients, the three-drug combination of remdesivir, dexamethasone, and tocilizumab decreased LOS by 8 days (p = 0.0034) when compared to nonviable treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma transfusion. However, it did not show any statistically significant benefit when compared to two-drug regimens (dexamethasone plus remdesivir) in severe COVID-19 (p = 0.116). No treatment arm appeared to show a statistically significant decrease in mortality for severe COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that three-drug combination may decrease LOS in severe COVID-19 patients when compared to two-drug therapy. However, the trend was not supported by statistical analysis. Remdesivir may not be clinically beneficial for mild hospitalized COVID-19 patients; considering its cost, one could reserve it for moderate and severe patients. Triple drug therapies, while potentially reducing LOS for severe patients, do not affect overall mortality. Additional patient data may increase statistical power and solidify these findings.