Post-COVID-19 syndrome and diabetes mellitus: a propensity-matched analysis of the International HOPE-II COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most frequent comorbidities in patients suffering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a higher rate of severe course of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, data about post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) in patients with DM are limited. Methods: This multicenter, propensity score-matched study compared long-term follow-up data about cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other symptoms in 8,719 patients with DM to those without DM. The 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age and sex resulted in 1,548 matched pairs. Results: Diabetics and nondiabetics had a mean age of 72.6 ± 12.7 years old. At follow-up, cardiovascular symptoms such as dyspnea and increased resting heart rate occurred less in patients with DM (13.2% vs. 16.4%; p = 0.01) than those without DM (2.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.05), respectively. The incidence of newly diagnosed arterial hypertension was slightly lower in DM patients as compared to non-DM patients (0.5% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.18). Abnormal spirometry was observed more in patients with DM than those without DM (18.8% vs. 13; p = 0.24). Paranoia was diagnosed more frequently in patients with DM than in non-DM patients at follow-up time (4% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.009). The incidence of newly diagnosed renal insufficiency was higher in patients suffering from DM as compared to patients without DM (4.8% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.09). The rate of readmission was comparable in patients with and without DM (19.7% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.61). The reinfection rate with COVID-19 was comparable in both groups (2.9% in diabetics vs. 2.3% in nondiabetics; p = 0.55). Long-term mortality was higher in DM patients than in non-DM patients (33.9% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.005). Conclusions: The mortality rate was higher in patients with DM type II as compared to those without DM. Readmission and reinfection rates with COVID-19 were comparable in both groups. The incidence of cardiovascular symptoms was higher in patients without DM.

Effect of Routine Invasive vs Conservative Strategy in Older Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Objective: To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, -7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, -63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Implications.

The Special Issue (SI) "Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Implications" is an interesting project that adopted a scientific point of view with important implications in clinical and practical fields [...].

Post-COVID-19 Symptoms and Heart Disease: Incidence, Prognostic Factors, Outcomes and Vaccination: Results from a Multi-Center International Prospective Registry (HOPE 2).

BACKGROUND: Heart disease is linked to worse acute outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although long-term outcomes and prognostic factor data are lacking. We aim to characterize the outcomes and the impact of underlying heart diseases after surviving COVID-19 hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the prospective registry HOPE-2 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19-2, NCT04778020). We selected patients discharged alive and considered the primary end-point all-cause mortality during follow-up. As secondary main end-points, we included any readmission or any post-COVID-19 symptom. Clinical features and follow-up events are compared between those with and without cardiovascular disease. Factors with p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis to determine independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: HOPE-2 closed on 31 December 2021, with 9299 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1805 died during this acute phase. Finally, 7014 patients with heart disease data were included in the present analysis, from 56 centers in 8 countries. Heart disease (+) patients were older (73 vs. 58 years old), more frequently male (63 vs. 56%), had more comorbidities than their counterparts, and suffered more frequently from post-COVID-19 complications and higher mortality (OR heart disease: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.81-3.84). Vaccination was found to be an independent protector factor (HR all-cause death: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.04-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: After surviving the acute phase, patients with underlying heart disease continue to present a more complex clinical profile and worse outcomes including increased mortality. The COVID-19 vaccine could benefit survival in patients with heart disease during follow-up.

Aspirin Therapy on Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the HOPE-COVID-19 Registry.

Background COVID-19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE COVID-19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity-score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score-matched population, cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID-19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42-0.92], P=0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

[Atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19. Usefulness of the CHA2DS2-VASc score: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 registry]. / Fibrilación auricular en pacientes con COVID-19. Utilidad de la puntuación CHA2DS2-VASc: un análisis del registro internacional HOPE COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P = .021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P = .002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P = .005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

Tendencias actuales en el tratamiento antitrombótico Current trends on antithrombotic therapy

Los fármacos antitrombóticos son un pilar fundamental en el tratamiento y prevención de las enfermedades cardiovasculares. A pesar de la amplia experiencia previa, en los últimos años se han producido importantes novedades en la práctica clínica que han modificado estrategias terapéuticas en diferentes escenarios como en el campo de la fibrilación auricular, la cardiopatía isquémica o el intervencionismo coronario percutáneo. A todo esto se debe que añadir el papel fundamental del tratamiento antitrombótico durante la reciente pandemia de COVID-19 y sus implicaciones dado el estado protrombótico que produce la infección por el virus SARS-CoV-2. Desde el Grupo de Trabajo de Trombosis Cardiovascular de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología, se ha sintetizado la evidencia científica reciente en el presente documento.

Tendencias actuales en el tratamiento antitrombótico

Resumen Los fármacos antitrombóticos son un pilar fundamental en el tratamiento y prevención de las enfermedades cardiovasculares. A pesar de la amplia experiencia previa, en los últimos años se han producido importantes novedades en la práctica clínica que han modificado estrategias terapéuticas en diferentes escenarios como en el campo de la fibrilación auricular, la cardiopatía isquémica o el intervencionismo coronario percutáneo. A todo esto se debe que añadir el papel fundamental del tratamiento antitrombótico durante la reciente pandemia de COVID-19 y sus implicaciones dado el estado protrombótico que produce la infección por el virus SARS-CoV-2. Desde el Grupo de Trabajo de Trombosis Cardiovascular de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología, se ha sintetizado la evidencia científica reciente en el presente documento. Antithrombotic drugs play a key role in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the previous knowledge, important developments in clinical practice have been reported in the last few years, especially in the field of atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease and percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, it is important to highlight the role of antithrombotic therapy in the current COVID-19 pandemic, since the infection caused by the new coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 has been associated with a prothrombotic state. This paper by the Working Group on Cardiovascular Thrombosis of the Spanish Society of Cardiology aims at summarizing the current information available in this complex scenario.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of the Social Confinement on People with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had imposed a variety of containment measures on the general population for prolonged periods. Confinement has had, and still has, social, economic, educational, health, and psychological consequences on the entire population. OBJECTIVE: In this article, a systematic search has been performed based on studies carried out since the beginning of the pandemic, regarding the impact of these containment measures on the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) population and their caregivers. METHOD: We consulted six databases (i.e., PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct) and selected ten studies that met the inclusion criteria. The chosen studies have been classified according to their theoretical focus, methodology, and target population. RESULTS: We found an increase in stress and a decrease in psychological well-being among individuals diagnosed with ASD (i.e., parents and caregivers). Additionally, in studies focused on children, youth, and adults with ASD diagnosis, the results are contradictory depending on variables such as age, ASD severity, or type of family structure. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the consequences of quarantine and social confinement are quite contradictory and depend on variables such as age, ASD severity, and family features.

Antiplatelet therapy and outcome in COVID-19: the Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. METHODS: 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: During hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: APT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04334291.

Efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists in COVID-19 outpatients with cardiometabolic diseases.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain if prior use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outpatients with multimorbidity impacts prognosis, especially if cardiometabolic diseases are present. Clinical outcomes 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis were compared between outpatients with cardiometabolic disease receiving vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct-acting OAC (DOAC) therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: A study was conducted using TriNetX, a global federated health research network. Adult outpatients with cardiometabolic disease (i.e. diabetes mellitus and any disease of the circulatory system) treated with VKAs or DOACs at time of COVID-19 diagnosis between 20-Jan-2020 and 15-Feb-2021 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance cohorts receiving VKAs and DOACs. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation (MV) necessity, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH)/gastrointestinal bleeding, and the composite of any arterial or venous thrombotic event(s) at 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: 2275 patients were included. After PSM, 1270 patients remained in the study (635 on VKAs; 635 on DOACs). VKA-treated patients had similar risks and 30-day event-free survival than patients on DOACs regarding all-cause mortality, ICU admission/MV necessity, and ICH/gastrointestinal bleeding. The risk of any arterial or venous thrombotic event was 43% higher in the VKA cohort (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.98; Log-Rank test p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 outpatients with cardiometabolic diseases, prior use of DOAC therapy compared to VKA therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis demonstrated lower risk of arterial or venous thrombotic outcomes, without increasing the risk of bleeding.

COVID-19 and the impact of arterial hypertension-An analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 Registry (Italy-Spain-Germany).

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants use prior to COVID-19 diagnosis and associations with 30-day clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use before hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis would potentially impact the severity and clinical outcomes thereafter. We compared 30-day hospitalization/re-hospitalization and clinical outcomes between patients on chronic DOAC therapy and patients not on oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We used data from TriNetX, a global federated health research network. Patients aged ≥18 years who were treated with DOACs at time of COVID-19 diagnosis between 20 January 2020 and 28 February 2021 were included, and matched with patients not on OAC therapy from the same period. All patients were followed-up at 30-days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization/re-hospitalization, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). RESULTS: 738,423 patients were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 26,006 patients remained in the study (13,003 on DOACs; 13,003 not on OAC). DOAC-treated patients (mean age 67.1 ± 15.4 years, 52.2% male) had higher relative risks (RRs) and lower 30-days event-free survival as compared to patients not on OAC for all-cause mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.44; Log-Rank test p = 0.010), hospitalization/re-hospitalization (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.64-1.82; Log-Rank test p < 0.001) and VTE (RR 4.51, 95% CI 3.91-5.82; Log-Rank test p < 0.001), but not for ICH (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.54-1.51; Log-Rank test p = 0.513). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients, previous DOAC therapy at time of diagnosis was not associated with improved clinical outcomes or lower hospitalization/re-hospitalization rate compared to patients not taking OAC therapy.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Multicenter International Prospective Registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019 [HOPE-COVID19]).

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: Final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.

COVID-19 anosmia and gustatory symptoms as a prognosis factor: a subanalysis of the HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19. These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291). There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p = 0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p = 0.484), liver (p = 0.1) or immune disease (p = 0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (< 0.0001), but no with ICU (0.165) or mechanical ventilation (0.292). On univariable logistic regression, OGD was found to be inversely related to death in COVID-19 patients. The odds ratio was 0.26 (0.15-0.44) (p < 0.001) and Z was - 5.05. The presence of anosmia is fundamental in the diagnosis of SARS.CoV-2 infection, but also could be important in classifying patients and in therapeutic decisions. Even more knowing that it is an early symptom of the disease. Knowing that other situations as being Afro-American or Latino-American, hypertension, renal insufficiency, or increase of C-reactive protein (CRP) imply a worse prognosis we can make a clinical score to estimate the vital prognosis of the patient. The exact pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 that causes olfactory and gustative disorders remains unknown but seems related to the prognosis. This point is fundamental, insomuch as could be a plausible way to find a treatment.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19. Usefulness of the CHA2DS2-VASc score: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P=.021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P=.002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P=.005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

Underlying heart diseases and acute COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. RESULTS: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay.