COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation and escalation of patient care: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory syndrome, which might contribute to morbidity and mortality. This study explores a specific phenotype of COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation (COV-HI), and its associations with escalation of respiratory support and survival. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive inpatients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to University College London Hospitals and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals in the UK with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of community-acquired infection. Demographic data, laboratory tests, and clinical status were recorded from the day of admission until death or discharge, with a minimum follow-up time of 28 days. We defined COV-HI as a C-reactive protein concentration greater than 150 mg/L or doubling within 24 h from greater than 50 mg/L, or a ferritin concentration greater than 1500 µg/L. Respiratory support was categorised as oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation, and intubation. Initial and repeated measures of hyperinflammation were evaluated in relation to the next-day risk of death or need for escalation of respiratory support (as a combined endpoint), using a multi-level logistic regression model. FINDINGS: We included 269 patients admitted to one of the study hospitals between March 1 and March 31, 2020, among whom 178 (66%) were eligible for escalation of respiratory support and 91 (34%) patients were not eligible. Of the whole cohort, 90 (33%) patients met the COV-HI criteria at admission. Despite having a younger median age and lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, a higher proportion of patients with COV-HI on admission died during follow-up (36 [40%] of 90 patients) compared with the patients without COV-HI on admission (46 [26%] of 179). Among the 178 patients who were eligible for full respiratory support, 65 (37%) met the definition for COV-HI at admission, and 67 (74%) of the 90 patients whose respiratory care was escalated met the criteria by the day of escalation. Meeting the COV-HI criteria was significantly associated with the risk of next-day escalation of respiratory support or death (hazard ratio 2·24 [95% CI 1·62-2·87]) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity. INTERPRETATION: Associations between elevated inflammatory markers, escalation of respiratory support, and survival in people with COVID-19 indicate the existence of a high-risk inflammatory phenotype. COV-HI might be useful to stratify patient groups in trial design. FUNDING: None.

Randomised, prospective, non-blinded pilot study comparing the effect of intramuscular steroid injections and intralesional steroid injections in the management of tennis elbow.

BACKGROUND: Tennis elbow is an overuse injury affecting people performing repetitive forearm movements. It is a soft tissue disorder that causes significant disability and pain. The aim of the study was to establish that an intramuscular steroid injection is effective in the short-term pain relief and functional improvement of tennis elbow. The severity of pain at the injection site was monitored to determine whether the intramuscular injection is better tolerated than the intralesional injection. METHODS AND RESULTS: 19 patients, who had no treatment for tennis elbow in the preceding 3 months, were recruited from Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, and were randomised to receive either 80 mg of intramuscular Depo-Medrone or 40 mg of intralesional Depo-Medrone injection. Blinding proved difficult as the injection sites differed and placebo arms were not included in the study. A Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) Questionnaire and a 10-point Likert scale were used to assess primary outcome. Six weeks after the treatment, there was a reduction in pain, improvement in function and total PRTEE scores in both intramuscular and intralesional groups (p=0.008) using a 95% CI for mean treatment difference of -26 to +16 points. A statistically significant result (p=0.001) in favour of intramuscular causing less pain at the injection site was noted. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of intramuscular to intralesional injections was not confirmed; however, the intramuscular injection proved to be effective in reducing tennis elbow-related symptoms and was found less painful at the site of injection at the time of administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRACT Number: 2010-022131-11. REC Number: 10/H0718/76 (NRES, Central London REC 1).