RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study investigates the care provision and the role of infectious disease (ID) specialists during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A survey was conducted at German study sites participating in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS). Hospitals certified by the German Society of Infectious diseases (DGI) were identified as ID centers. We compared care provision and the involvement of ID specialists between ID and non-ID hospitals. Then we applied a multivariable regression model to analyse how clinical ID care influenced the mortality of COVID-19 patients in the LEOSS cohort. RESULTS: Of the 40 participating hospitals in the study, 35% (14/40) were identified as ID centers. Among those, clinical ID care structures were more commonly established, and ID specialists were always involved in pandemic management and the care of COVID-19 patients. Overall, 68% (27/40) of the hospitals involved ID specialists in the crisis management team, 78% (31/40) in normal inpatient care, and 80% (28/35) in intensive care. Multivariable analysis revealed that COVID-19 patients in ID centers had a lower mortality risk compared to those in non-ID centers (odds ratio: 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.93), p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: ID specialists played a crucial role in pandemic management and inpatient care.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Symptom control for patients who were severely ill or dying from COVID-19 was paramount while resources were strained and infection control measures were in place. We aimed to describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received specialized palliative care (SPC) and the type of SPC provided in a larger cohort. METHODS: From the multi-centre cohort study Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS), data of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection documented between July 2020 and October 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: 273/7292 patients (3.7%) received SPC. Those receiving SPC were older and suffered more often from comorbidities, but 59% presented with an estimated life expectancy > 1 year. Main symptoms were dyspnoea, delirium, and excessive tiredness. 224/273 patients (82%) died during the hospital stay compared to 789/7019 (11%) without SPC. Symptom control was provided most common (223/273; 95%), followed by family and psychological support (50% resp. 43%). Personal contact with friends or relatives before or during the dying phase was more often documented in patients receiving SPC compared to patients without SPC (52% vs. 30%). CONCLUSION: In 3.7% of SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients, the burden of the acute infection triggered palliative care involvement. Besides complex symptom management, SPC professionals also focused on psychosocial and family issues and aimed to enable personal contacts of dying patients with their family. The data underpin the need for further involvement of SPC in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients but also in other severe chronic infectious diseases.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Paliativos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios de Cohortes , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02). CONCLUSION: Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Estudios de Cohortes , AntiviralesRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Studies investigating risk factors for severe COVID-19 often lack information on the representativeness of the study population. Here, we investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 and compare the representativeness of the dataset to the general population. METHODS: We used data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed in 2020 in Germany to identify associated factors for severe COVID-19, defined as progressing to a critical disease stage or death. To assess the representativeness, we compared the LEOSS cohort to cases of hospitalized patients in the German statutory notification data of the same time period. Descriptive methods and Poisson regression models were used. RESULTS: Overall, 6672 hospitalized patients from LEOSS and 132,943 hospitalized cases from the German statutory notification data were included. In LEOSS, patients above 76 years were less likely represented (34.3% vs. 44.1%). Moreover, mortality was lower (14.3% vs. 21.5%) especially among age groups above 66 years. Factors associated with a severe COVID-19 disease course in LEOSS included increasing age, male sex (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-1.86), prior stem cell transplantation (aRR 2.27, 95% CI 1.53-3.38), and an elevated C-reactive protein at day of diagnosis (aRR 2.30, 95% CI 2.03-2.62). CONCLUSION: We identified a broad range of factors associated with severe COVID-19 progression. However, the results may be less applicable for persons above 66 years since they experienced lower mortality in the LEOSS dataset compared to the statutory notification data.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trasplante de Células Madre Hematopoyéticas , Humanos , Masculino , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Gravedad del Paciente , Alemania/epidemiología , HospitalizaciónRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Active malignancies have been identified as an independent risk factor for severity and mortality in COVID-19. However, direct comparisons between SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with active (acP) and non-active cancers (n-acP) remain scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of cancer patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enrolled from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021. Data on demographics, cancer, and laboratory findings were collected. Descriptive and subsequent regression analyses were performed. Endpoints were "deterioration to severe COVID-19" and "infection-associated mortality." RESULTS: In total, 987 cancer patients (510 acP vs. 477 n-acP) were included in our analysis. The majority was >55 years old, more men than women were included. At detection of SARS-CoV-2, 65.5% of patients had mild/moderate symptoms, while deterioration to severe COVID-19 was slightly more common in acP (19 vs. 16%; p = 0.284). COVID-19-associated mortality was significantly higher in acP (24 vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). In terms of laboratory tests, severe cytopenia and elevated levels of inflammatory markers were common findings in acP at baseline, particularly in those who developed a severe infection or died. Multivariate analysis revealed that ferritin (HR 14.24 [2.1-96], p = 0.006) and CRP (HR 2.85 [1.02-8.02], p = 0.046) were associated with severity and mortality. In n-acP, association was seen for ferritin only (HR 4.1 [1.51-11.17], p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Comparing patients with active and non-active cancer, the former showed higher mortality rates. Also, inflammatory markers were significantly increased, assuming higher levels of inflammation may play a role in the adverse outcome of COVID-19 in aCP.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios Retrospectivos , FerritinasRESUMEN
During the COVID-19 pandemic, large numbers of elderly, multimorbid people required treatment in intensive care units. This study investigated how the inherent patient factors age and comorbidity burden affected the treatment strategy and the outcome achieved. Retrospective analysis of data from intensive care patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) cohort found that a patient's age and comorbidity burden in fact influenced their mortality rate and the use of ventilation therapy. Evidence showed that advanced age and multimorbidity were associated with the restrictive use of invasive ventilation therapies, particularly ECMO. Geriatric patients with a high comorbidity burden were clustered in the sub-cohort of non-ventilated ICU patients characterized by a high mortality rate. The risk of death generally increased with older age and accumulating comorbidity burden. Here, the more aggressive an applied procedure, the younger the age in which a majority of patients died. Clearly, geriatric, multimorbid COVID-19 patients benefit less from invasive ventilation therapies. This implies the need for a holistic approach to therapy decisions, taking into account the patient's wishes.
RESUMEN
Superinfections are a fundamental critical care problem, and their significance in severe COVID-19 cases needs to be determined. This study analyzed data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) cohort focusing on intensive care patients. A retrospective analysis of patient data from 840 cases of COVID-19 with critical courses demonstrated that co-infections were frequently present and were primarily of nosocomial origin. Furthermore, our analysis showed that invasive therapy procedures accompanied an increased risk for healthcare-associated infections. Non-ventilated ICU patients were rarely affected by secondary infections. The risk of infection, however, increased even when non-invasive ventilation was used. A further, significant increase in infection rates was seen with the use of invasive ventilation and even more so with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy. The marked differences among ICU techniques used for the treatment of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure in terms of secondary infection risk profile should be taken into account for the optimal management of critically ill COVID-19 patients, as well as for adequate antimicrobial therapy.
RESUMEN
Anonymization has the potential to foster the sharing of medical data. State-of-the-art methods use mathematical models to modify data to reduce privacy risks. However, the degree of protection must be balanced against the impact on statistical properties. We studied an extreme case of this trade-off: the statistical validity of an open medical dataset based on the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON), which was prepared for publication using a strong anonymization procedure. Descriptive statistics and results of regression analyses were compared before and after anonymization of multiple variants of the original dataset. Despite significant differences in value distributions, the statistical bias was found to be small in all cases. In the regression analyses, the median absolute deviations of the estimated adjusted odds ratios for different sample sizes ranged from 0.01 [minimum = 0, maximum = 0.58] to 0.52 [minimum = 0.25, maximum = 0.91]. Disproportionate impact on the statistical properties of data is a common argument against the use of anonymization. Our analysis demonstrates that anonymization can actually preserve validity of statistical results in relatively low-dimensional data.