The importance of association of comorbidities on COVID-19 outcomes: a machine learning approach.

BACKGROUND: The individual influence of a variety of comorbidities on COVID-19 patient outcomes has already been analyzed in previous works in an isolated way. We aim to determine if different associations of diseases influence the outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort multicenter study based on clinical practice. Data were taken from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, which includes most consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized and discharged in Spain. Two machine learning algorithms were applied in order to classify comorbidities and patients (Random Forest -RF algorithm, and Gaussian mixed model by clustering -GMM-). The primary endpoint was a composite of either, all-cause death or intensive care unit admission during the period of hospitalization. The sample was randomly divided into training and test sets to determine the most important comorbidities related to the primary endpoint, grow several clusters with these comorbidities based on discriminant analysis and GMM, and compare these clusters. RESULTS: A total of 16,455 inpatients (57.4% women and 42.6% men) were analyzed. According to the RF algorithm, the most important comorbidities were heart failure/atrial fibrillation (HF/AF), vascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases. There were six clusters: three included patients who met the primary endpoint (clusters 4, 5, and 6) and three included patients who did not (clusters 1, 2, and 3). Patients with HF/AF, vascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases were distributed among clusters 3, 4 and 5. Patients in cluster 5 also had kidney, liver, and acid peptic diseases as well as a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; it was the cluster with the worst prognosis. CONCLUSION: The interplay of several comorbidities may affect the outcome and complications of inpatients with COVID-19.

The Use of Corticosteroids or Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Based on Inflammatory Markers.

BACKGROUND: The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer it remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and D-dimer values. PATIENTS: A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. KEY RESULTS: A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%, p=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high-risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

AIM: To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). METHODS: Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality.

Admission hyperglycaemia as a predictor of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of diabetes status: data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia has emerged as an important risk factor for death in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between blood glucose (BG) levels and in-hospital mortality in non-critically patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-centre study involving patients hospitalized in Spain. Patients were categorized into three groups according to admission BG levels: <140 mg/dL, 140-180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 11,312 patients, only 2128 (18.9%) had diabetes and 2289 (20.4%) died during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% (<140 mg/dL), 33.7% (140-180 mg) and 41.1% (>180 mg/dL), p<.001. The cumulative probability of mortality was significantly higher in patients with hyperglycaemia compared to patients with normoglycaemia (log rank, p<.001), independently of pre-existing diabetes. Hyperglycaemia (after adjusting for age, diabetes, hypertension and other confounding factors) was an independent risk factor of mortality (BG >180 mg/dL: HR 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.73) (BG 140-180 mg/dL; HR 1.48; 95%CI: 1.29-1.70). Hyperglycaemia was also associated with requirement for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Admission hyperglycaemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in non-critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients regardless of prior history of diabetes. KEY MESSAGE Admission hyperglycaemia is a stronger and independent risk factor for mortality in COVID-19. Screening for hyperglycaemia, in patients without diabetes, and early treatment of hyperglycaemia should be mandatory in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Admission hyperglycaemia should not be overlooked in all patients regardless prior history of diabetes.

[Integral control of risk factors in patients of high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain. CIFARC project]. / Control integral de los factores de riesgo en pacientes de alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular en España. Estudio CIFARC.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk, with their risk factors globally well controlled (hypertension, dyslipemia, diabetes mellitus, tobacco and obesity). PATIENTS AND METHOD: Transversal study of ambulatory patients of internal medicine with an estimated cardiovascular risk high or very high (Framingham stratification scale over 20% in ten years). We evaluated the degree of control of their cardiovascular risk factors attending to the recommendations provided by recent international guidelines (WHO/ISH, JNC-VI, NCEP-ATP-III, ADA). RESULTS: We studied 2,264 patients (53.7% males; mean age: 66.1 +/- 11.5 years; 74.6% hypertensive, 61.1% dyslipidemic, 59.8% type 2 diabetes, 31.1% smokers, 38.0% obese and 36.7% in secondary prevention). Control of hypertension was achieved in 34.5%, dyslipidemia in 50.3% and diabetes in 35.5%. Global control of every risk factor was achieved in 6.9% (in 10.2% if we exclude obesity since it is not a risk factor used for cardiovascular stratification). Factors independently associated with a bad integral control were: diabetes (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.23-0.47), dyslipidemia (OR = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.24-0.48), proteinuria (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.18-0.71). Factors independently associated with a better cardiovascular control were: male sex (OR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.18-2.38), ventricular hypertrophy (OR = 1.62; 95%CI: 1.15-2.30) and the number of exploratory tests (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 1.01-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Only 6.9% of patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk have all their principal risk factors under control. The presence of diabetes, dyslipidemia or proteinuria predisposed to a worse control and the number of complementary tests performed to the patients was related to a better control.

[Decrease of total hemorrhage with reduced doses of enoxaparin in high risk unstable angina. ENHNFAI study. (Enoxaparin vs non-fractionated heparin in unstable angina). Preliminary report]. / Disminución de hemorragias totales con dosis reducidas de enoxaparina en angina inestable de alto riesgo. Estudio ENHNFAI. (ENoxaparina vs Heparina No Fraccionada en Angina inestable). Informe preliminar.

UNLABELLED: In this prospective, randomized and controlled study, we compare complications in 2 groups of patients: group 1, enoxaparin 0.8 mg/kg, subcutaneous every 12 hours during 5 days, and group 2, intravenous unfractionated heparin during 5 days, by infusion treated to activate partial tromboplastin time 1.5-2 the upper limit of normal. Blood samples were obtained at 4, 12, 24 hours and at day 5 of treatment, to measure anti-Xa levels, and also, evaluated end points at 30 days, between groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed with clinical and angiographic variables between groups, with p < 0.05. RESULTS: 203 consecutive patients, average age of 60.5 +/- 11.2 years, and 80% men, were included. There were no differences in clinical and angiographic characteristics. All patients with enoxaparin had therapeutic levels of anti-Xa, of 0.5 to 0.67 U/mL. There was increasing risk of total bleeding in group 2 (18.7%) than in group 1 (5.6%), with RR = 1.72 (95% CI 1.29, 2.29), p = .003. Also, there was 33.3% of MACE in group 2, and only 17.8% in group 1, with RR = 1.88 (CI 95% 1.29, 2.29), p = .011. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Low doses of enoxaparine achieve therapeutic levels, since the first 4 hours of treatment. 2) A significant reduction of total bleeding occurred with the low doses of enoxaparin, with the same efficacy to reduce MACE during follow-up.