RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is thought to be caused by immune overdrive and cytokine storm. One of the cytokine storm syndromes frequently induced by infections is secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) which can be assessed using H-score. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the rate of patients with COVID-19 who meet HLH criteria based on H-score and the association of H-score with poor outcomes. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of 19 patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU stay from March to May, 2020, we collected demographic and clinical data that focused on H-score's variables and COVID-19 outcomes. H-score ≥ 169 was used to determine the percentage of patients who met the HLH criteria. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman rho tests and multiple regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the associated factors. The optimal H-score cut-off to predict poor COVID-19 outcome (need for intubation ± ECMO) was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: In 669 patients with severe COVID-19 with a mean ± SD age of 50.3 ± 12.8 years, which comprised 95% men; 66% required intubation, 4% ECMO, and 16% died. Only 2% had an H-score ≥ 169. Patients with poor outcomes had a higher mean (SD) H-score than those without; intubation (96.0 [50.0] vs 75.0 [35.0], p < 0.01), ECMO (113.0 [25.0] vs 93.0 [50.0], p < 0.01) and death (98.0 [62.0] vs 93.0 [48.0], p < 0.01). Factors associated with H-score were diabetes (ß coeff = - 10.4, p < 0.01), abdominal pain (ß coeff = 19.1, p < 0.01), duration of COVID-19 symptoms (ß coeff = - 0.7, p = 0.049), and days before ICU admission (ß coeff = - 1.2, p = 0.01). H-score showed a fair ability to discriminate COVID-19 outcomes (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.67). An H-score of 85 was the optimal cut-off with a sensitivity 69% and 1-specificity 53%. CONCLUSION: Despite its association with severity in COVID-19, H-score's ability to predict poor outcomes was only fair, indicating differences in the cytokine storm faced in COVID-19 compared with that during secondary HLH.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at a higher risk of poor outcomes from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We evaluated whether patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were at a higher risk of a poorer outcome than those without an ARDs. METHODS: Patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were matched to control patients without a known ARDs. Matching was performed according to age ( ± 6 years) and sex at a case-to-control ratio of 1:3. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the databases and were compared between the two groups. Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was the primary outcome and was defined as the requirement for oxygen therapy support, the need for invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or the use of glucocorticoids. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients with an ARDs were matched to 398 patients who formed the control group. The mean ages (SD) of the ARDs and non-ARDs groups were 44.4 years (11.4) and 43.4 years (12.2). Women accounted for 58.8% of the ARDs group and 56.3% of the control group (p = 0.59). Demographics and comorbidities were balanced between the groups. ARDs included connective tissue disease in 43 (30.3%) patients, inflammatory arthritis in 92 (65.2%), and other ARDs in 8 (5.7%). ARDs medications included biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts-DMARDs) in 28 (15.6%) patients, conventional synthetic DMARDs in 95 (67.4%), and immunosuppressive antimetabolites in 13 (9.2%). The ARDs group had more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection than the control group (24.8% and 20.6% vs. 10% and 5.3%, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was more common in the ARDs group than in the control group (14.9% vs. 5.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center matched cohort study, patients with an ARDs experienced more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and had more severe infection than those from the control group. Therefore, patients with an ARDs require close observation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
RESUMO
Objective: To describe four peripheral spondyloarthritis patients presenting with fever and severe systemic inflammatory response mimicking infection. Methods: Between 2017 and 2019, four patients with the final diagnosis of peripheral spondyloarthritis had atypical presentation of fever and severe systemic inflammatory response requiring hospital admission and extensive workup. Results: We reported four patients who were admitted to the hospital for fever and arthritis. They all had laboratory tests of the severe systemic inflammatory response (leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, high ESR, and high CRP) concerning infection. They underwent extensive workup for infectious causes, including septic arthritis, which came back negative. Other rheumatic diseases that are known to present with fever such as adult-onset Still's disease, reactive arthritis, and crystal arthritis were all excluded. The final diagnosis of spondyloarthritis was made during their follow-up: three patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis and one with psoriatic arthritis. All patients received conventional DMARDs (methotrexate and sulfasalazine) and two patients received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in addition to conventional DMARDs to control their disease. Conclusion: We observed a subgroup of peripheral spondyloarthritis patients presenting with fever and severe systemic inflammatory response requiring hospitalization. Recognition of this subgroup is important and should be considered once an infection is ruled out.