COVID-19 and geographical area of origin

ObjectivesTo describe and compare the main clinical characteristics and outcome measures in hospitalized patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to geographical area of origin.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 at a referral centre in Madrid, Spain, during March–May 2020 was performed. Recorded variables (age, gender, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, outcome), and geographical area of origin were compared for Europeans and non-Europeans (Latin Americans, Asians and Africans).ResultsIn total, 2345 patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized during the study period were included in the study. Of these, 1956 (83.4%) were European and 389 (16.6%) were non-European (of whom over 90%, 354/389, were Latin American). Non-Europeans were significantly younger than Europeans (mean 54 (SD 13.5) versus 70.4 (SD 15.1) years, p < 0.001); the majority were male (1420/2345, 60.6%), with no significant differences in gender between Europeans and non-Europeans (1197/1956 (61.2%) male in the European group versus 223/389 (57.3%) male in the non-European group, p 0.15). In-hospital mortality overall was higher in Europeans (443/1956, 22.7%) than in non-Europeans (40/389, 10.3%) (p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences when adjusted for age/gender (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.86–1.88). Non-Europeans were more frequently admitted to ICU (71/389, 18.3%) compared with Europeans (187/1956, 9.6%) (p < 0.001) and a difference in ICU admission rate was also found when adjusted for age/gender (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03–1.98).ConclusionsNo significant differences in mortality were observed between Europeans and non-Europeans (mainly Latin Americans), but an increase in ICU admission rate was found in non-Europeans.     

Assessing the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on mortality: a population-based,matched case-control study

ObjectivesEstimating the isolated effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of mortality is challenging. We aimed to determine whether COVID-19 was associated with high rates of mortality independently of age, sex and underlying disorders.MethodsA population-based, matched, case-control study of adults insured by Clalit Health Services was performed. Cases were defined as patients who died of all causes between July and December 2020. Each case was matched in a ratio of 1:1 with a living control based on age, sex and co-morbidities. An unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for mortality.ResultsA total of 2874 patients who died were successfully matched with 2874 living controls. The prevalence of COVID-19 was higher among the patients who died than among the controls (13.5% [387/2874] vs. 4% [115/2874], respectively; OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 3.01–4.63; p < 0.001). A significantly increased odds of mortality was also observed in patients with COVID-19 without underlying diseases (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.58–5.23) and in patients with COVID-19 and underlying diseases (OR, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.87–4.94). A multi-variate logistic analysis showed that COVID-19 (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.07–3.77), low socio-economic status (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02–1.82), dementia (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.10–3.01), smoking (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.63) and an interaction variable of age >80 years and COVID-19 (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.14–4.54) were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas influenza vaccination and high body mass index were associated with lower rates of mortality.ConclusionTesting positive for COVID-19 increased the risk of death three folds, regardless of underlying disorders. These results emphasize the effect of COVID-19 on mortality during the early period of the COVID-19 outbreak, when no vaccines or effective therapeutics were available.     

Impact of prior statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: data from tertiary referral hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

BackgroundEpidemiological evidence suggests that anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of statins may reduce the risk of infections and infection-related complications.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the impact of prior statin use on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity and mortality.MethodsIn this observational multicenter study, consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled. In-hospital mortality and severity of COVID-19 assessed with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were deemed primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to obtain balanced cohorts.ResultsAmong 842 patients enrolled, 179 (21%) were treated with statins before admission. Statin patients showed more comorbidities and more severe COVID-19 (NEWS 4 [IQR 2–6] vs 3 [IQR 2–5], p < 0.001). Despite having similar rates of intensive care unit admission, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation, statin users appeared to show higher mortality rates. After balancing pre-existing relevant clinical conditions that could affect COVID-19 prognosis with PS matching, statin therapy confirmed its association with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥5 61% vs. 48%, p = 0.025) but not with in-hospital mortality (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.185). At univariate logistic regression analysis, statin use was confirmed not to be associated with mortality (OR 0.901; 95% CI: 0.537 to 1.51; p = 0.692) and to be associated with a more severe disease (NEWS≥5 OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.067–2.71; p = 0.026).ConclusionsOur results did not confirm the supposed favorable effects of statin therapy on COVID-19 outcomes. Conversely, they suggest that statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities, which indeed expose to increased risks of more severe COVID-19.     

Length of hospital stay and risk of intensive care admission and in-hospital death among COVID-19 patients in Norway: a register-based cohort study comparing patients fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine to unvaccinated patients

ObjectivesWe estimated the length of stay (LoS) in hospital and the intensive care unit (ICU) and risk of admission to ICU and in-hospital death among COVID-19 patients ≥18 years in Norway who had been fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (at least two doses or one dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), compared to unvaccinated patients.MethodsUsing national registry data, we analyzed SARS-CoV-2–positive patients hospitalized in Norway between 1 February and 30 November 2021, with COVID-19 as the main cause of hospitalization. We ran Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for vaccination status, age, sex, county of residence, regional health authority, date of admission, country of birth, virus variant, and underlying risk factors.ResultsWe included 716 fully vaccinated patients (crude overall median LoS: 5.2 days; admitted to ICU: 103 (14%); in-hospital death: 86 (13%)) and 2487 unvaccinated patients (crude overall median LoS: 5.0 days; admitted to ICU: 480 (19%); in-hospital death: 102 (4%)). In adjusted models, fully vaccinated patients had a shorter overall LoS in hospital (adjusted log hazard ratios (aHR) for discharge: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.24–2.08), shorter LoS without ICU (aHR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07–1.52), and lower risk of ICU admission (aHR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37–0.69) compared to unvaccinated patients. We observed no difference in the LoS in ICU or in risk of in-hospital death between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.DiscussionFully vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Norway have a shorter LoS and lower risk of ICU admission than unvaccinated patients. These findings can support patient management and ongoing capacity planning in hospitals.     

Clinical course and factors associated with outcomes among 1904 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Germany: an observational study

ObjectivesIn Germany the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic situation is unique among large European countries in that incidence and case fatality rate are distinctly lower. We describe the clinical course and examine factors associated with outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Germany.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study we included patients with COVID-19 admitted to a national network of German hospitals between February 12 and June 12, 2020. We examined demographic characteristics, comorbidities and clinical outcomes.ResultsWe included 1904 patients with a median age of 73 years, 48.5% (924/1904) of whom were female. The mortality rate was 17% (317/1835; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 16–19), the rate of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) was 21% (399/1860; 95%CI 20–23), and the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 14% (250/1850: 95%CI 12–15). The most prominent risk factors for death were male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.45; 95%CI 1.15–1.83), pre-existing lung disease (HR 1.61; 95%CI 1.20–2.16), and increased patient age (HR 4.11 (95%CI 2.57–6.58) for age >79 years versus <60 years). Among patients admitted to the ICU, the mortality rate was 29% (109/374; 95%CI 25–34) and higher in ventilated (33% [77/235; 95%CI 27–39]) than in non-ventilated ICU patients (23%, 32/139; 95%CI 16–30; p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn this nationwide series of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Germany, in-hospital and ICU mortality rates were substantial. The most prominent risk factors for death were male sex, pre-existing lung disease, and greater patient age.     

Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionWe systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.ResultsFive RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33–1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09–3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82–1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.     

Improved COVID-19 ICU admission and mortality outcomes following treatment with statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionApproximately 1% of the world population has now been infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With cases still rising and vaccines just beginning to rollout, we are still several months away from seeing reductions in daily case numbers, hospitalisations, and mortality. Therefore, there is a still an urgent need to control the disease spread by repurposing existing therapeutics. Owing to antiviral, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and cardioprotective actions, statin therapy has been considered as a plausible approach to improve COVID-19 outcomes.Material and methodsWe carried out a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of statins on 3 COVID-19 outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, tracheal intubation, and death. We systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases using keywords related to our aims up to November 2, 2020. All published observational studies and randomised clinical trials on COVID-19 and statins were retrieved. Statistical analysis with random effects modelling was performed using STATA16 software.ResultsThe final selected studies (n = 24 studies; 32,715 patients) showed significant reductions in ICU admission (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.58–1.06; n = 10; I² = 58.5%) and death (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55–0.88; n = 21; I² = 82.5%) outcomes, with no significant effect on tracheal intubation (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.57–1.11; n = 7; I²= 89.0%). Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested that death was reduced further by in-hospital application of stains (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22–0.73, n = 3; I² = 82.5%), compared with pre-hospital use (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60–0.98, n = 18; I² = 81.8%).ConclusionsThese findings call attention to the need for systematic clinical studies to assess both pre- and in-hospital use of statins as a potential means of reducing COVID-19 disease severity, particularly in terms of reduction of ICU admission and total mortality reduction.     

Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesAmid the increasing number of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, there is a need for a quick and easy method to obtain a non-invasive sample for the detection of this novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to investigate the potential use of saliva samples as a non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsFrom 27 March to 4 April 2020, we prospectively collected saliva samples and a standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab in persons seeking care at an acute respiratory infection clinic in a university hospital during the outbreak of COVID-19. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed, and the results of the two specimens were compared.ResultsTwo-hundred pairs of samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) individuals were male, and the median (interquartile) age was 36 (28–48) years. Using nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR as the reference standard, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR was 9.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the saliva sample RT-PCR were 84.2% (95% CI 60.4%–96.6%), and 98.9% (95% CI 96.1%–99.9%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens demonstrated 97.5% observed agreement (κ coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723–0.979; p < 0.001).ConclusionsSaliva might be an alternative specimen for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The collection is non-invasive, and non-aerosol generating. This method could facilitate the diagnosis of the disease, given the simplicity of specimen collection and good diagnostic performance.     

Community-acquired pneumonia severity assessment tools in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a validation and clinical applicability study

ObjectiveTo externally validate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) tools on patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia from two distinct countries, and compare their performance with recently developed COVID-19 mortality risk stratification tools.MethodsWe evaluated 11 risk stratification scores in a binational retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in São Paulo and Barcelona: Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), CURB, CURB-65, qSOFA, Infectious Disease Society of America and American Thoracic Society Minor Criteria, REA-ICU, SCAP, SMART-COP, CALL, COVID GRAM and 4C. The primary and secondary outcomes were 30-day in-hospital mortality and 7-day intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respectively. We compared their predictive performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, calibration plots and decision curve analysis.ResultsOf 1363 patients, the mean (SD) age was 61 (16) years. The 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 24.6% (228/925) in São Paulo and 21.0% (92/438) in Barcelona. For in-hospital mortality, we found higher AUCs for PSI (0.79, 95% CI 0.77–0.82), 4C (0.78, 95% CI 0.75–0.81), COVID GRAM (0.77, 95% CI 0.75–0.80) and CURB-65 (0.74, 95% CI 0.72–0.77). Results were similar for both countries. For the 1%–20% threshold range in decision curve analysis, PSI would avoid a higher number of unnecessary interventions, followed by the 4C score. All scores had poor performance (AUC <0.65) for 7-day ICU admission.ConclusionsRecent clinical COVID-19 assessment scores had comparable performance to standard pneumonia prognostic tools. Because it is expected that new scores outperform older ones during development, external validation studies are needed before recommending their use.     

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review

ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a major cause of hospital admission and represents a challenge for patient management during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia in critically ill patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to 15th August 2020. Preprints and reports were also included if they met the inclusion criteria. Study eligibility criteria were full-text prospective, retrospective or registry-based publications describing outcomes in patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19, using a validated test. Participants were critically ill patients admitted in the ICU with COVID-19 infection.ResultsFrom 32 articles included, a total of 69 093 patients were admitted to the ICU and were evaluated. Most patients included in the studies were male (76 165/128 168, 59%, 26 studies) and the mean patient age was 56 (95%CI 48.5–59.8) years. Studies described high ICU mortality (21 145/65 383, 32.3%, 15 studies). The median length of ICU stay was 9.0 (95%CI 6.5–11.2) days, described in five studies. More than half the patients admitted to the ICU required mechanical ventilation (31 213/53 465, 58%, 23 studies) and among them mortality was very high (27 972/47 632, 59%, six studies). The duration of mechanical ventilation was 8.4 (95%CI 1.6–13.7) days. The main interventions described were the use of non-invasive ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressors.ConclusionsThis systematic review, including approximately 69 000 ICU patients, demonstrates that COVID-19 infection in critically ill patients is associated with great need for life-sustaining interventions, high mortality, and prolonged length of ICU stay.     

Inhaled colistin as adjunctive therapy to intravenous colistin for the treatment of microbiologically documented ventilator-associated pneumonia: a comparative cohort study

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) as a result of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has contributed to the revival of the use of intravenous (i.v.) colistin. However, the additional administration of inhaled colistin for VAP is controversial. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with microbiologically documented VAP who received i.v. colistin with or without inhaled colistin. Seventy-eight patients with VAP received i.v. plus inhaled colistin, whereas 43 patients received i.v. colistin alone. The mean ± SD daily dosage of i.v. colistin was 7.0 ± 2.4 and 6.4 ± 2.3 million international units (IU), respectively (p 0.13); the average daily dosage of inhaled colistin was 2.1 ± 0.9 million IU. The outcome of infection was cure for 62/78 (79.5%) patients who received i.v. plus inhaled colistin vs. 26/43 (60.5%) patients who received i.v. colistin alone (p 0.025); all-cause in-hospital mortality was 31/78 (39.7%) vs. 19/43 (44.2%), respectively (p 0.63); all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was 28/78 (35.9%) vs. 17/43 (39.5%), respectively (p 0.92). The use of inhaled colistin was independently associated with the cure of VAP in a multivariable analysis (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.11–5.76). Independent predictors of mortality were a higher APACHE II score (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04–1.20), presence of malignancy (OR 4.11, 95% CI 1.18–14.23) and lower daily dosage of i.v. colistin (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96). The outcome of VAP was better in patients who received inhaled colistin with i.v. colistin than those who received i.v. colistin alone. There was no difference in all-cause in-hospital and ICU mortality between the two groups. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate further the role of inhaled colistin in VAP.     

Effectiveness of remdesivir with corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients in intensive care unit: A hospital-based observational study

The effectiveness of remdesivir on survival in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in cases treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), is controversial. We investigated the effectiveness of remdesivir with corticosteroids on the survival of COVID-19 patients in a real ICU clinical practice. For laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of a tertiary hospital in Tokyo (April 2020–November 2021) and who received corticosteroids, the effectiveness of remdesivir for survival, stratified by interval length (within 9 or 10+ days), was retrospectively analyzed using Cox regression model. A total of 168 patients were included: 35 with no remdesivir use (control), 96 with remdesivir use within 9 days, and 37 with remdesivir use with an interval of 10+ days. In-hospital mortality was 45.7%, 10.4%, and 16.2%, respectively. After adjusting for possible covariates including comorbidities, laboratory data, oxygen demand, or level of pneumonia, remdesivir use within 9 days from symptom onset reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.025–0.428) compared to the control group. However, remdesivir use with an interval of 10+ days showed no significant association with mortality (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.117–1.524). Among COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids in ICU, remdesivir use within 9 days from symptom onset was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality risk.     

Predictors and microbiology of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19: living rapid review update and meta-regression

BackgroundThe prevalence of bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19 is low, however, empiric antibiotic use is high. Risk stratification may be needed to minimize unnecessary empiric antibiotic use.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors and microbiology associated with respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature up to 5 February 2021.Study eligibility criteriaStudies including at least 50 patients with COVID-19 in any healthcare setting.MethodsWe used a validated ten-item risk of bias tool for disease prevalence. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with bloodstream and/or respiratory bacterial co-infection and secondary infection. We performed meta-regression to identify study population factors associated with bacterial infection including healthcare setting, age, comorbidities and COVID-19 medication.ResultsOut of 33 345 studies screened, 171 were included in the final analysis. Bacterial infection data were available from 171 262 patients. The prevalence of co-infection was 5.1% (95% CI 3.6–7.1%) and secondary infection was 13.1% (95% CI 9.8–17.2%). There was a higher odds of bacterial infection in studies with a higher proportion of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (adjusted OR 18.8, 95% CI 6.5–54.8). Female sex was associated with a lower odds of secondary infection (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.97) but not co-infection (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80–1.37). The most common organisms isolated included Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Klebsiella species.ConclusionsWhile the odds of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection are low in patients with COVID-19, meta-regression revealed potential risk factors for infection, including ICU setting and mechanical ventilation. The risk for secondary infection is substantially greater than the risk for co-infection in patients with COVID-19. Understanding predictors of co-infection and secondary infection may help to support improved antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19.     

Quercetin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently approved therapies for COVID-19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in-hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random-effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID-19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.     

Frailty for predicting all-cause mortality in elderly acute coronary syndrome patients: A meta-analysis

BackgroundFrailty has been identified as a risk factor for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between frailty and all-cause mortality outcome in patients with ACS.MethodsPubmed and Embase databases were searched up to September 26, 2018 for the observational studies evaluating the association between frailty and all-cause mortality in elderly ACS patients. Outcome measures were in-hospital death, short-term all-cause mortality (≤6 months),and long-term all-cause mortality (≥12 months).The impact of frailty on all-cause mortality was summarized as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the frail versus nonfrail patients.ResultsA total of 9 cohort studies involving 2475 elderly ACS patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that ACS patients with frailty had an increased risk of in-hospital death (HR 5.49; 95% CI 2.19–13.77), short-term all-cause mortality (HR 3.56; 95% CI 1.96–6.48), and long-term all-cause mortality (HR 2.44; 95% CI 1.92–3.12) after adjustment for confounding factors. In addition, prefrailty was also associated with an increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.65; 95% CI 1.01–2.69).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that frailty independently predicts all-cause mortality in elderly ACS patients. Elderly ACS patients should be assessed the frailty status for improving risk stratification.     

Development and validation of a prediction model for severe respiratory failure in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicentre cohort study (PREDI-CO study)

ObjectivesWe aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict severe respiratory failure (SRF) among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed a multicentre cohort study among hospitalized (>24 hours) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 22 February to 3 April 2020, at 11 Italian hospitals. Patients were divided into derivation and validation cohorts according to random sorting of hospitals. SRF was assessed from admission to hospital discharge and was defined as: Spo₂ <93% with 100% Fio₂, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min or respiratory distress. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of SRF, β-coefficients were used to develop a risk score. Trial Registration NCT04316949.ResultsWe analysed 1113 patients (644 derivation, 469 validation cohort). Mean (±SD) age was 65.7 (±15) years, 704 (63.3%) were male. SRF occurred in 189/644 (29%) and 187/469 (40%) patients in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. At multivariate analysis, risk factors for SRF in the derivation cohort assessed at hospitalization were age ≥70 years (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.66–4.50), obesity (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.78–7.70), body temperature ≥38°C (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.30–2.29), respiratory rate ≥22 breaths/min (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01–7.01), lymphocytes ≤900 cells/mm³ (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.60–4.51), creatinine ≥1 mg/dL (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.59–3.56), C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/dL (OR 5.91; 95% CI 4.88–7.17) and lactate dehydrogenase ≥350 IU/L (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.11–5.11). Assigning points to each variable, an individual risk score (PREDI-CO score) was obtained. Area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.89 (0.86–0.92). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 71.6% (65%–79%), 89.1% (86%–92%), 74% (67%–80%) and 89% (85%–91%), respectively. PREDI-CO score showed similar prognostic ability in the validation cohort: area under the receiver-operator curve 0.85 (0.81–0.88). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 80% (73%–85%), 76% (70%–81%), 69% (60%–74%) and 85% (80%–89%), respectively.ConclusionPREDI-CO score can be useful to allocate resources and prioritize treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

SARS-CoV-2 exposures of healthcare workers from primary care,long-term care facilities and hospitals: a nationwide matched case-control study

ObjectivesThis study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on healthcare workers' (HCWs) risk of COVID-19 working in primary care, long-term-care facilities or hospitals.MethodsWe conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April through 9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) were invited by E-mail to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use over the 10-day period preceding inclusion. Risk factors were analysed using multivariable conditional logistic regression.ResultsA total of 2076 cases and 2076 matched controls were included. The analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted OR 19.9 (95% CI, 12.4–31.9)), an infected colleague (OR 2.26 (95% CI, 1.53–3.33)) or COVID-19 patients (OR 2.37 (95% CI, 1.66–3.40)), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial (OR 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22–0.40)) or complete (OR 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14–0.27)) immunisation was protective. Eye protection (OR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.37–0.87)) and wearing a gown (OR 0.58 (95% CI, 0.34–0.97)) for COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (OR 1.47 (95% CI, 1.00–2.18)). Protection of N95 respirators and surgical face masks did not differ. Compared to medical professions, being a nurse (OR 3.79 (95% CI, 2.50–5.76)) or a nurse's aide (OR 9.08 (95% CI, 5.30–15.5)) was associated with COVID-19. Results were consistent across all healthcare settings.DiscussionHCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.     

Risk factors and outcome of pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients—a multinational observational study by the European Confederation of Medical Mycology

ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) -associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has emerged as a complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The objectives of this multinational study were to determine the prevalence of CAPA in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICU) and to investigate risk factors for CAPA as well as outcome.MethodsThe European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) conducted a multinational study including 20 centres from nine countries to assess epidemiology, risk factors and outcome of CAPA. CAPA was defined according to the 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus definitions.ResultsA total of 592 patients were included in this study, including 11 (1.9%) patients with histologically proven CAPA, 80 (13.5%) with probable CAPA, 18 (3%) with possible CAPA and 483 (81.6%) without CAPA. CAPA was diagnosed a median of 8 days (range 0–31 days) after ICU admission predominantly in older patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.04 per year; 95% CI 1.02–1.06) with any form of invasive respiratory support (HR 3.4; 95% CI 1.84–6.25) and receiving tocilizumab (HR 2.45; 95% CI 1.41–4.25). Median prevalence of CAPA per centre was 10.7% (range 1.7%–26.8%). CAPA was associated with significantly lower 90-day ICU survival rate (29% in patients with CAPA versus 57% in patients without CAPA; Mantel–Byar p < 0.001) and remained an independent negative prognostic variable after adjusting for other predictors of survival (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.59–2.87, p ≤ 0.001).ConclusionPrevalence of CAPA varied between centres. CAPA was significantly more prevalent among older patients, patients receiving invasive ventilation and patients receiving tocilizumab, and was an independent strong predictor of ICU mortality.     

Factors associated with asymptomatic infection in health-care workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Wuhan,China: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo describe the fraction of asymptomatic health-care workers (HCWs) in two designated hospitals for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in Wuhan and explore the factors associated with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.MethodsAll HCWs in Wuhan Union Hospital and Wuhan Red Cross Hospital with either positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid or positive antibody test before 18 April 2020 were included. Exposure, epidemiological and demographic information were retrospectively collected by a structured questionnaire. Medical records were also reviewed for clinical characteristics and CT images of HCWs.ResultsAs of 18 April 2020, a total of 424 HCWs were identified. Among them, 276 (65.1%) were symptomatic and 148 (34.9%) were asymptomatic. Fifty-five (19.9%) families of the symptomatic HCWs and 16 (10.8%) families of the asymptomatic HCWs were infected with SARS-CoV-2. HCWs with infected family members tended to be symptomatic (OR 2.053, 95% CI 1.130–3.730; p 0.018). Multivariable logistic regression analysis exhibited that performing tracheal intubation or extubation (OR 4.057, 95% CI 1.183–13.909; p 0.026) was associated with an increased likelihood of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas consistent use of N95 respirators (OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.201–0.680; p 0.001) and eye protection (OR 0.217, 95% CI 0.116–0.404; p < 0.001) were associated with an increased likelihood of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.ConclusionsAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs comprised a considerable proportion of HCW infections during the pandemic of COVID-19. Those who performed tracheal intubation or extubation were most likely to develop related symptoms, whereas those taking aggressive measures, including consistent use of N95 masks and eye protection, tended to be asymptomatic cases.     

Nationwide effectiveness of five SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Hungary—the HUN-VE study

ObjectivesThe Hungarian vaccination campaign was conducted with five different vaccines during the third wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2021. This observational study (HUN-VE: Hungarian Vaccine Effectiveness) estimated vaccine effectiveness against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19-related mortality in 3.7 million vaccinated individuals.MethodsIncidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality were calculated using data from the National Public Health Centre surveillance database. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 – incidence rate ratio ≥7 days after the second dose for each available vaccine versus an unvaccinated control group using mixed-effect negative binomial regression controlling for age, sex and calendar day.ResultsBetween 22 January 2021 and 10 June 2021, 3 740 066 Hungarian individuals received two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), HB02 (Sinopharm), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik-V), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines. Incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death were 1.73–9.3/100 000 person-days and 0.04–0.65/100 000 person-days in the fully vaccinated population, respectively. Estimated adjusted effectiveness varied between 68.7% (95% CI 67.2%–70.1%) and 88.7% (95% CI 86.6%–90.4%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, and between 87.8% (95% CI 86.1%–89.4%) and 97.5% (95% CI 95.6%–98.6%) against COVID-19-related death, with 100% effectiveness in individuals aged 16–44 years for all vaccines.ConclusionsOur observational study demonstrated the high or very high effectiveness of five different vaccines in the prevention SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death.