Hypertensive urgencies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary hospital setting: a U-shaped alarming curve

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provoked unprecedented disturbance in hypertension care, while alarming concerns arose about its long-term consequences. We investigated the trends of emergency visits and admissions regarding uncontrolled hypertension in order to assess the impact of COVID-19 spread on population behavior towards hypertension urgencies during its first wave.Material and methodsData from daily unscheduled visits and admission counts in the Cardiology sector were collected from the Emergency Department database of a tertiary General Hospital in Athens, Greece for the period January 15^th to July 15^th 2020. These data were compared with those from the previous year. Cases of patients who presented with hypertensive urgency or who were admitted due to uncontrolled hypertension were separately analyzed.ResultsA total of 7,373 patient records were analyzed. Hypertension urgency cases demonstrated a U-shaped distribution in 2020, showing a declining trend during the rapid virus spread, an image that was reversed after the transmission rate’s decline. COVID-19 incidence in Greece was inversely associated with uncontrolled hypertension admissions during its declining phase (r = –0.64, p = 0.009), whereas total attendance exhibited a similar correlation during the first and the following months of the pandemic (r = 0.677, p = 0.031, r = –0.789, p = 0.001). Uncontrolled hypertension rate on admission was positively related to the national incidence of COVID-19 cases during the first months of 2020 (r = 0.82, p = 0.045).ConclusionsHypertensive urgency-related visits followed a U-shape distribution during the pandemic’s first wave with the attendance nadir coinciding with the virus spread peak. This is a complex phenomenon, closely related to increased levels of public stress, disruptions in health care services and to a lesser extent to the imposed restrictions in transportation. The initial relative increase in uncontrolled hypertension-related admissions rate, combined with the later increase of hypertensive urgencies may be indicative of blood pressure deregulation among the studied population, which is multifactorial and potentially detrimental.     

Impact of COVID-19 and malaria coinfection on clinical outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesDespite the possibility of concurrent infection with COVID-19 and malaria, little is known about the clinical course of coinfected patients. We analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with concurrent COVID-19 and malaria infection.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study that assessed prospectively collected data of all patients who were admitted between May and December 2020 to the Universal COVID-19 treatment center (UCTC), Khartoum, Sudan. UCTC compiled demographic, clinical, laboratory (including testing for malaria), and outcome data in all patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized at that clinic. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. We built proportional hazard Cox models with malaria status as the main exposure and stepwise adjustment for age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, and hypertension.ResultsWe included 591 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who were also tested for malaria. Mean (SD) age was 58 (16.2) years, 446/591 (75.5%) were males. Malaria was diagnosed in 270/591 (45.7%) patients. Most malaria patients were infected by Plasmodium falciparum (140/270; 51.9%), while 121/270 (44.8%) were coinfected with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. Median follow-up was 29 days. Crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with concurrent malaria and COVID-19 had a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.69).DiscussionCoinfection with COVID-19 and malaria is associated with increased all-cause in-hospital mortality compared to monoinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).     

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Delay and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundIt has been known that the fear of contagion during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) creates time delays with subsequent impact on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, difference of time delay and clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI between the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic era has not been fully investigated yet in Korea. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on time delays and clinical outcome in patients with STEMI or non-STEMI compared to the same period years prior.MethodsA total of 598 patients with STEMI (n = 195) or non-STEMI (n = 403) who underwent coronary angiography during the COVID-19 pandemic (February 1 to April 30, 2020) and pre-pandemic era (February 1 to April 30, 2017, 2018, and 2019) were analyzed in this study. Main outcomes were the incidence of time delay, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital death.ResultsThere was 13.5% reduction in the number of patients hospitalized with AMI during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era. In patients with STEMI, door to balloon time tended to be longer during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (55.7 ± 12.6 minutes vs. 60.8 ± 13.0 minutes, P = 0.08). There were no significant differences in cardiac arrest (15.6% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.397) and in-hospital mortality (15.6% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.397) between pre-pandemic and the pandemic era. In patients with non-STEMI, symptom to door time was significantly longer (310.0 ± 346.2 minutes vs. 511.5 ± 635.7 minutes, P = 0.038) and the incidence of cardiac arrest (0.9% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.045) was significantly greater during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era. Among medications, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin type 2 receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARBs) were underused in STEMI (64.6% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.021) and non-STEMI (67.8% vs. 57.0%, P = 0.061) during the pandemic.ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a considerable reduction in hospital admissions for AMI, time delay, and underuse of ACE-I/ARBs for the management of AMI, and this might be closely associated with the excess death in Korea.     

New-onset diabetes in COVID-19 and clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDDiabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 is known to be bidirectional.AIMTo analyze the rate of new-onset diabetes in COVID-19 patients and compare the clinical outcomes of new-onset diabetes, pre-existing diabetes, hyperglycemic, and non-diabetes among COVID-19 patients.METHODSWe used the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for the present meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for all peer-reviewed articles published until November 6, 2020. Articles were screened using Covidence and data extracted. Further analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis. Among the 128 studies detected after thorough database searching, seven were included in the quantitative analysis. The proportion was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed using I².RESULTSAnalysis showed that 19.70% (CI: 10.93-32.91) of COVID-19 patients had associated DM, and 25.23% (CI: 19.07-32.58) had associated hyperglycemia. The overall mortality rate was 15.36% (CI: 12.57-18.68) of all COVID-19 cases, irrespective of their DM status. The mortality rate was 9.26% among non-diabetic patients, 10.59% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 16.03% among known DM patients, and 24.96% among COVID-19 associated DM patients. The overall occurrence of adverse events was 20.52% (CI: 14.21-28.70) among COVID-19 patients in the included studies, 15.29% among non-diabetic patients, 20.41% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 20.69% among known DM patients, and 45.85% among new-onset DM. Meta-regression showed an increasing rate of mortality among new hyperglycemic patients, known diabetics, and new-onset DM patients in comparison to those without diabetes.CONCLUSIONA significantly higher rate of new onset DM and hyperglycemia was observed. Higher mortality rates and adverse events were seen in patients with new-onset DM and hyperglycemia than in the non-diabetic population.     

Clinical Features of Adult COVID-19 Patients without Risk Factors before and after the Nationwide SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta)-variant Outbreak in Korea: Experience from Gyeongsangnam-do

BackgroundData on severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) delta variant virulence are insufficient. We retrospectively compared the clinical features of adult coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients without risk factors for severe COVID-19 who entered residential treatment centers (RTCs) before and after the delta variant outbreak.MethodsWe collected medical information from two RTCs in South Korea. On the basis of nationwide delta variant surveillance, we divided the patients into two groups: 1) the delta-minor group (diagnosed from December 2020–June 2021, detection rate < 10%) and 2) the delta-dominant group (diagnosed during August 2021, detection rate > 90%). After propensity-score matching, the incidences of pneumonia, hospital transfer and need for supplemental oxygen were compared between the groups. In addition, risk factors for hospital transfer were analysed.ResultsA total of 1,915 patients were included. The incidence of pneumonia (14.6% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.009), all-cause hospital transfer (10.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.020) and COVID-19-related hospital transfer (7.5% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.081) were higher in the delta-dominant group than those in the delta-minor group. In the multivariate analysis, the delta-dominant group was an independent risk factor for all-cause (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–3.13; P = 0.011) and COVID-19-related hospital transfer (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.04–3.32; P = 0.036).ConclusionHospitalization rates were increased in the adult COVID-19 patients during the delta variant nationwide outbreak. Our results showed that the delta variant may be more virulent than previous lineages.     

Interaction Effects between COVID-19 Outbreak and Community Income Levels on Excess Mortality among Patients Visiting Emergency Departments

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on excess in-hospital mortality among patients who visited emergency departments (EDs) and to assess whether the excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic varies by community income level.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study using the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS) database in Korea. The study population was defined as patients who visited all 402 EDs with medical conditions other than injuries between January 27 and May 31, 2020 (after-COVID) and for the corresponding time period in 2019 (before-COVID). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The main exposure was the COVID-19 outbreak, and the interaction variable was county per capita income tax. We calculated the risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by COVID-19 outbreak, as well as the difference-in-difference of risk-adjusted rates between the before-COVID and after-COVID groups according to the county income tax using a multilevel linear regression model with the interaction term.ResultsA total of 11,662,167 patients (6,765,717 in before-COVID and 4,896,450 in after-COVID) were included in the study with a 1.6% crude in-hospital mortality rate. The risk-adjusted mortality rate in the after-COVID group was higher than that in the before-COVID group (1.82% vs. 1.50%, difference: 0.31% [0.30 to 0.33]; adjusted odds ratio: 1.22 [1.18 to 1.25]). The excess in-hospital mortality rate of the after-COVID in the lowest quartile group of county income tax was significantly higher than that in the highest quartile group (difference-in-difference: 0.18% (0.14 to 0.23); P-for-interaction: < 0.01).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, there was excess in-hospital mortality among patients who visited EDs, and there were disparities in excess mortality depending on community socioeconomic positions.     

Increased Healthcare Delays in Tuberculosis Patients During the First Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused disruptions to healthcare systems, consequently endangering tuberculosis (TB) control. We investigated delays in TB treatment among notified patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea.MethodsWe systemically collected and analyzed data from the Korea TB cohort database from January to May 2020. Groups were categorized as ‘before-pandemic’ and ‘during-pandemic’ based on TB notification period. Presentation delay was defined as the period between initial onset of symptoms and the first hospital visit, and healthcare delay as the period between the first hospital visit and anti-TB treatment initiation. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with delays in TB treatment.ResultsProportion of presentation delay > 14 days was not significantly different between two groups (48.3% vs. 43.7%, P = 0.067); however, proportion of healthcare delay > 5 days was significantly higher in the during-pandemic group (48.6% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.012). In multivariate analysis, the during-pandemic group was significantly associated with healthcare delay > 5 days (adjusted odds ratio = 0.884, 95% confidence interval = 0.715–1.094).ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with healthcare delay of > 5 days in Korea. Public health interventions are necessary to minimize the pandemic’s impact on the national TB control project.     

National surveillance of bacterial and fungal coinfection and secondary infection in COVID-19 patients in England: lessons from the first wave

ObjectivesThe impact of bacterial/fungal infections on the morbidity and mortality of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We have investigated the incidence and impact of key bacterial/fungal infections in persons with COVID-19 in England.MethodsWe extracted laboratory-confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (1st January 2020 to 2nd June 2020) and blood and lower-respiratory specimens positive for 24 genera/species of clinical relevance (1st January 2020 to 30th June 2020) from Public Health England's national laboratory surveillance system. We defined coinfection and secondary infection as a culture-positive key organism isolated within 1 day or 2–27 days, respectively, of the SARS-CoV-2-positive date. We described the incidence and timing of bacterial/fungal infections and compared characteristics of COVID-19 patients with and without bacterial/fungal infection.Results1% of persons with COVID-19 (2279/223413) in England had coinfection/secondary infection, of which >65% were bloodstream infections. The most common causative organisms were Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Cases with coinfection/secondary infections were older than those without (median 70 years (IQR 58–81) versus 55 years (IQR 38–77)), and a higher percentage of cases with secondary infection were of Black or Asian ethnicity than cases without (6.7% versus 4.1%, and 9.9% versus 8.2%, respectively, p < 0.001). Age-sex-adjusted case fatality rates were higher in COVID-19 cases with a coinfection (23.0% (95%CI 18.8–27.6%)) or secondary infection (26.5% (95%CI 14.5–39.4%)) than in those without (7.6% (95%CI 7.5–7.7%)) (p < 0.005).ConclusionsCoinfection/secondary bacterial/fungal infections were rare in non-hospitalized and hospitalized persons with COVID-19, varied by ethnicity and age, and were associated with higher mortality. However, the inclusion of non-hospitalized persons with asymptomatic/mild COVID-19 likely underestimated the rate of secondary bacterial/fungal infections. This should inform diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing strategy.     

Estimation of Excess All-cause Mortality during COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea

BackgroundExcess all-cause mortality is helpful to assess the full extent of the health impact, including direct and indirect deaths of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The study aimed to estimate overall and regional excess all-cause mortality during the pandemic in Korea.MethodsWe obtained all-cause death data and population statistics from January 2010 to December 2020. The expected mortality in 2020 was estimated using a quasi-Poisson regression model. The model included death year, seasonal variation, cold wave (January), average death counts in the previous month, and population. Excess mortality was defined as the difference between the observed mortality and the expected mortality. Regions were classified into three areas according to the numbers of COVID-19 cases.ResultsThere was no annual excess all-cause mortality in 2020 at the national and regional level compared to the average death for the previous ten years. The observed mortality in 2020 was 582.9 per 100,000 people, and the expected mortality was 582.3 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval, 568.3–596.7). However, we found monthly and regional variations depending on the waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. While the mortality in August, October, and November exceeded the expected range, the mortality in September was lower than the expected range. The months in which excess deaths were identified differed by region.ConclusionOur results show that the mortality in 2020 was similar to the historical trend. However, in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be necessary to regularly investigate COVID-19-related mortality and determine its direct and indirect causes.     

Changes in the Incidence of Intussusception and Infectious Diseases After the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea

BackgroundIntussusception refers to the invagination of a part of the intestine into itself. The exact cause for this condition is unknown in most cases. The active implementation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control guidelines has reduced the spread of COVID-19 and the incidence of other infectious diseases in children. The current study aimed to identify changes in pediatric intussusception and infectious diseases after the implementation of infection control guidelines and confirm the association between intussusception and contagious diseases.MethodsWe analyzed the electronic medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed with intussusception from seven hospitals in Korea between January 2017 and December 2020. We used open data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate changes in infectious diseases over the same period.ResultsAltogether, we evaluated 390 children with intussusception. There was a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of monthly visits with intussusception in the COVID-19 period group (9.0 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001). When the monthly incidence of infectious diseases was compared between the pre-COVID-19 and the COVID-19 periods, a statistically significant decrease in respiratory viruses (7979.0 vs. 815.2, P < 0.001), enterovirus infection (262.2 vs. 6.6, P < 0.001), and viral enteritis (916.2 vs. 197.8, P < 0.001) were confirmed in the COVID-19 period. Through interrupted time series analysis, it was confirmed that the incidence of intussusception and viral infectious diseases have drastically decreased since March 2020, when COVID-19 infection control guidelines were actively implemented.ConclusionWe confirmed that implementing infection control guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decrease in intussusception and viral infectious diseases. Through this result, it was possible to indirectly confirm the existing hypothesis that viral infections play a significant role in the pathophysiologic mechanism of intussusception.     

Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Patients: A Nationwide,Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model.ResultsAmong 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P = 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089).ConclusionOur study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.     

Changes in the Occurrence of Gastrointestinal Infections after COVID-19 in Korea

BackgroundAfter the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), lifestyle changes to curb the spread of COVID-19 (e.g., wearing a mask, hand washing, and social distancing) have also affected the outbreak of other infectious diseases. However, few studies have been conducted on whether the incidence of gastrointestinal infections has changed over the past year with COVID-19. In this study, we examined how the incidence of gastrointestinal infections has changed since COVID-19 outbreak through open data.MethodsWe summarized the data on the several viruses and bacteria that cause gastrointestinal infections from the open data of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency for 3 years from March 2018 to February 2021 (from Spring 2018 to Winter 2020). Moreover, we confirmed three most common legal gastrointestinal infectious pathogens from March 2016.ResultsFrom March 2020, when the COVID-19 epidemic was in full swing and social distancing and personal hygiene management were heavily emphasized, the incidence of infection from each virus was drastically decreased. The reduction rates compared to the averages of the last 2 years were as follows: total viruses 31.9%, norovirus 40.2%, group A rotavirus 31.8%, enteric adenovirus 13.4%, astrovirus 7.0%, and sapovirus 12.2%. Among bacterial pathogens, the infection rates of Campylobacter and Clostridium perfringens did not decrease but rather increased in some periods when compared to the average of the last two years. The incidence of nontyphoidal Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, or enteropathogenic Escherichia coli somewhat decreased but not significantly compared to the previous two years.ConclusionThe incidence of infection from gastrointestinal viruses, which are mainly caused by the fecal-to-oral route and require direct contact among people, was significantly reduced, whereas the incidence of bacterial pathogens, which have food-mediated transmission as the main cause of infection, did not decrease significantly.     

Risk factors for disease severity,unimprovement, and mortality in COVID-19 patients in Wuhan,China

ObjectiveIn December 2019, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan. However, the characteristics and risk factors associated with disease severity, unimprovement and mortality are unclear and our objective is to throw some light on these.MethodsAll consecutive patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from January 11 to February 6, 2020, were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study.ResultsA total of 663 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. Among these, 247 (37.3%) had at least one kind of chronic disease; 0.5% of the patients (n = 3) were diagnosed with mild COVID-19, while 37.8% (251/663), 47.5% (315/663), and 14.2% (94/663) were in moderate, severe, and critical conditions, respectively. In our hospital, during follow-up 251 of 663 patients (37.9%) improved and 25 patients died, a mortality rate of 3.77%. Older patients (>60 years old) and those with chronic diseases were prone to have a severe to critical COVID-19 condition, to show unimprovement, and to die (p <0.001, <0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified being male (OR = 0.486, 95%CI 0.311–0.758; p 0.001), having a severe COVID-19 condition (OR = 0.129, 95%CI 0.082–0.201; p <0.001), expectoration (OR = 1.796, 95%CI 1.062–3.036; p 0.029), muscle ache (OR = 0.309, 95%CI 0.153–0.626; p 0.001), and decreased albumin (OR = 1.929, 95%CI 1.199–3.104; p 0.007) as being associated with unimprovement in COVID-19 patients.ConclusionMale sex, a severe COVID-19 condition, expectoration, muscle ache, and decreased albumin were independent risk factors which influence the improvement of COVID-19 patients.     

Clinical characteristics,management and in-hospital mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Genoa,Italy

ObjectivesTo describe clinical characteristics, management and outcome of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); and to evaluate risk factors for all-cause in-hospital mortality.MethodsThis retrospective study from a University tertiary care hospital in northern Italy, included hospitalized adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between 25 February 2020 and 25 March 2020.ResultsOverall, 317 individuals were enrolled. Their median age was 71 years and 67.2% were male (213/317). The most common underlying diseases were hypertension (149/317; 47.0%), cardiovascular disease (63/317; 19.9%) and diabetes (49/317; 15.5%). Common symptoms at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis included fever (285/317; 89.9%), shortness of breath (167/317; 52.7%) and dry cough (156/317; 49.2%). An ‘atypical’ presentation including at least one among mental confusion, diarrhoea or nausea and vomiting was observed in 53/317 patients (16.7%). Hypokalaemia occurred in 25.8% (78/302) and 18.5% (56/303) had acute kidney injury. During hospitalization, 111/317 patients (35.0%) received non-invasive respiratory support, 65/317 (20.5%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 60/317 (18.5%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. All-cause in-hospital mortality, assessed in 275 patients, was 43.6% (120/275). On multivariable analysis, age (per-year increase OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001), cardiovascular disease (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.07–6.25; p 0.03), and C-reactive protein levels (per-point increase OR 1.009; 95% CI 1.004–1.014; p 0.001) were independent risk factors for all-cause in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsCOVID-19 mainly affected elderly patients with predisposing conditions and caused severe illness, frequently requiring non-invasive respiratory support or ICU admission. Despite supportive care, COVID-19 remains associated with a substantial risk of all-cause in-hospital mortality.     

Workload of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Korea: A Nationwide Survey

BackgroundAs the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing, heavy workload of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a concern. This study investigated the workload of HCWs responding to the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 16 to October 15, 2020, involving 16 healthcare facilities (4 public medical centers, 12 tertiary-care hospitals) that provide treatment for COVID-19 patients.ResultsPublic medical centers provided the majority (69.4%) of total hospital beds for COVID-19 patients (n = 611), on the other hand, tertiary care hospitals provided the majority (78.9%) of critical care beds (n = 57). The number of beds per doctor (median [IQR]) in public medical centers was higher than in tertiary care hospitals (20.2 [13.0, 29.4] versus 3.0 [1.3, 6.6], P = 0.006). Infectious Diseases physicians are mostly (80%) involved among attending physicians. The number of nurses per patient (median [interquartile range, IQR]) in tertiary-care hospitals was higher than in public medical centers (4.6 [3.4–5] vs. 1.1 [0.8–2.1], P = 0.089). The median number of nurses per patient for COVID-19 patients was higher than the highest national standard in South Korea (3.8 vs. 2 for critical care). All participating healthcare facilities were also operating screening centers, for which a median of 2 doctors, 5 nurses, and 2 administrating staff were necessary.ConclusionAs the severity of COVID-19 patients increases, the number of HCWs required increases. Because the workload of HCWs responding to the COVID-19 outbreak is much greater than other situations, a workforce management plan regarding this perspective is required to prevent burnout of HCWs.     

Incidence of co-infections and superinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo describe the burden, epidemiology and outcomes of co-infections and superinfections occurring in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed an observational cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted for ≥48 hours to the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona for COVID-19 (28 February to 22 April 2020) who were discharged or dead. We describe demographic, epidemiologic, laboratory and microbiologic results, as well as outcome data retrieved from electronic health records.ResultsOf a total of 989 consecutive patients with COVID-19, 72 (7.2%) had 88 other microbiologically confirmed infections: 74 were bacterial, seven fungal and seven viral. Community-acquired co-infection at COVID-19 diagnosis was uncommon (31/989, 3.1%) and mainly caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. A total of 51 hospital-acquired bacterial superinfections, mostly caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, were diagnosed in 43 patients (4.7%), with a mean (SD) time from hospital admission to superinfection diagnosis of 10.6 (6.6) days. Overall mortality was 9.8% (97/989). Patients with community-acquired co-infections and hospital-acquired superinfections had worse outcomes.ConclusionsCo-infection at COVID-19 diagnosis is uncommon. Few patients developed superinfections during hospitalization. These findings are different compared to those of other viral pandemics. As it relates to hospitalized patients with COVID-19, such findings could prove essential in defining the role of empiric antimicrobial therapy or stewardship strategies.     

The association between pre-exposure to glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressant drugs with severe COVID-19 outcomes

ObjectivesWhether preinfection use of immunosuppressant drugs is associated with COVID-19 severity remains unclear. The study was aimed to determine the association between preinfection use of immunosuppressant drugs with COVID-19 outcomes within 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsThis cohort study included individuals aged ≥18 years with underlying conditions associated with an immunocompromised state and diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and January 2021 at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.Exposure to immunosuppressant drugs was defined based on dose and duration of drugs (glucocorticoids and drugs included in L01 or L04 chapter of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification) before COVID-19 diagnosis. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, mortality, renal failure, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and cardiac event. ORs were calculated using logistic regression and baseline covariate adjustment for confounding with inverse probability of treatment weights.ResultsOf 1067 included individuals, 444 were pre-exposed to immunosuppressive treatments before COVID-19 diagnosis (72 high-dose glucocorticoids, 255 L01 drugs (antineoplastics), 198 L04 (other immunosuppressants) and 78 to multiple drugs). There was no association between pre-exposure and hospital admission (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.09) because of COVID-19. Pre-exposure to L01 or L04 drugs were not associated with hospital admission (adjusted ORs (aORs): 1.23, 0.86 to 1.76 and 1.31, 0.77 to 2.21) or other outcomes. High-dose glucocorticoids (≥20 mg/day prednisolone equivalent) were associated with hospital admission (aOR 2.50, 1.26 to 4.96), cardiac events (aOR 1.93, 1.08 to 3.46), pulmonary embolism (aOR 2.78, 1.08 to 7.15), and mortality (aOR 3.48, 1.77 to 6.86) due to COVID-19.DiscussionAntineoplastic and other immunosuppressants drugs were not associated with COVID-19 severity whereas high-dose glucocorticoids were associated. Further studies should evaluate the effect of pre-exposure of different dose of glucocorticoids on COVID-19 prognosis.     

Mortality reduction with use of oral beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVES:Recent studies have revealed a relationship between beta-blocker use and worse prognosis in acute coronary syndrome, mainly due to a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock. However, the relevance of this relationship in the reperfusion era is unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome that started oral beta-blockers within the first 24 hours of hospital admission (group I) compared to patients who did not use oral beta-blockers in this timeframe (group II).METHODS:This was an observational, retrospective and multicentric study with 2,553 patients (2,212 in group I and 341 in group II). Data regarding demographic characteristics, coronary treatment and medication use in the hospital were obtained. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The groups were compared by ANOVA and the chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was conducted by logistic regression and results were considered significant when p<0.05.RESULTS:Significant differences were observed between the groups in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, enoxaparin, and statins; creatinine levels; ejection fraction; tabagism; age; and previous coronary artery bypass graft. Significant differences were also observed between the groups in mortality (2.67% vs 9.09%, OR=0.35, p=0.02) and major adverse cardiovascular events (11% vs 29.5%, OR=4.55, p=0.02).CONCLUSIONS:Patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent early intervention with oral beta-blockers during the first 24 hours of hospital admission had a lower in-hospital death rate and experienced fewer major adverse cardiovascular events with no increase in cardiogenic shock or sustained ventricular arrhythmias compared to patients who did not receive oral beta-blockers within this timeframe.     

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 Cohort Patients in Daegu Metropolitan City Outbreak in 2020

BackgroundA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in February 2020 and was controlled at the end of March 2020 in Daegu, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in Korea. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in Daegu.MethodsIn collaboration with Daegu Metropolitan City and Korean Center for Diseases Control, we conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including viral RNA detection, were obtained from the electronic medical records and cohort database and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariate and multi-variable logistic regression methods and Cox regression model and performed Kaplan–Meier analysis to determine the risk factors associated with the 28-day mortality and release from isolation among the patients.ResultsIn this study, 7,057 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19 (total cohort) who had been diagnosed from February 18 to July 10, 2020 were included. Of the total cohort, 5,467 were asymptomatic to mild patients (77.4%) (asymptomatic 30.6% and mild 46.8%), 985 moderate (14.0%), 380 severe (5.4%), and 225 critical (3.2%). The mortality of the patients was 2.5% (179/7,057). The Cox regression hazard model for the patients with available clinical information (core cohort) (n = 2,254) showed the risk factors for 28-day mortality: age > 70 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.219, P = 0.002), need for O₂ supply at admission (HR, 2.995; P = 0.001), fever (> 37.5°C) (HR, 2.808; P = 0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.119; P = 0.008), cancer (HR, 3.043; P = 0.011), dementia (HR, 5.252; P = 0.008), neurological disease (HR, 2.084; P = 0.039), heart failure (HR, 3.234; P = 0.012), and hypertension (HR, 2.160; P = 0.017). The median duration for release from isolation was 33 days (interquartile range, 24.0–46.0) in survivors. The Cox proportional hazard model for the long duration of isolation included severity, age > 70, and dementia.ConclusionOverall, asymptomatic to mild patients were approximately 77% of the total cohort (asymptomatic, 30.6%). The case fatality rate was 2.5%. Risk factors, including older age, need for O₂ supply, dementia, and neurological disorder at admission, could help clinicians to identify COVID-19 patients with poor prognosis at an early stage.     

Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy)chloroquine

ObjectiveTo compare survival of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.MethodsWe analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from 27 February to 15 May 2020, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day all-cause mortality. We performed a survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox regression with adjustment for age, sex and covariates based on premorbid health, disease severity and the use of steroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome, including dexamethasone.ResultsAmong 1949 individuals, 21-day mortality was 21.5% in 1596 patients treated in hospitals that routinely prescribed (hydroxy)chloroquine, and 15.0% in 353 patients treated in hospitals that did not. In the adjusted Cox regression models this difference disappeared, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 0.81–1.47). When stratified by treatment actually received in individual patients, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine was associated with an increased 21-day mortality (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.24–2.02) in the full model.ConclusionsAfter adjustment for confounders, mortality was not significantly different in hospitals that routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine compared with hospitals that did not. We compared outcomes of hospital strategies rather than outcomes of individual patients to reduce the chance of indication bias. This study adds evidence against the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.