Eosinophilia Is Associated with Improved COVID-19 Outcomes in Inhaled Corticosteroid-Treated Patients.

BACKGROUND: In addition to their proinflammatory effect, eosinophils have antiviral properties. Similarly, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were found to suppress coronavirus replication in vitro and were associated with improved outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the interplay between the two and its effect on COVID-19 needs further evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the associations among preexisting blood absolute eosinophil counts, ICS, and COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cleveland Clinic COVID-19 Research Registry (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021). Of the 82,096 individuals who tested positive, 46,397 had blood differential cell counts obtained before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing dates. Our end points included the need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and in-hospital mortality. The effect of eosinophilia on outcomes was estimated after propensity weighting and adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 46,397 patients included in the final analyses, 19,506 had preexisting eosinophilia (>0.15 × 103 cells/µL), 5,011 received ICS, 9,096 (19.6%) were hospitalized, 2,129 required ICU admission (4.6%) and 1,402 died during index hospitalization (3.0%). Adjusted analysis associated eosinophilia with lower odds for hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.86 [0.79-0.93]), ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.69-0.90]), and mortality (OR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.68-0.95]) among ICS-treated patients but not untreated ones. The correlation between absolute eosinophil count and the estimated probability of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death was nonlinear (U-shaped) among patients not treated with ICS, and negative in treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The association between eosinophilia and improved COVID-19 outcomes depends on ICS. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the role of ICS and its interaction with eosinophilia in COVID-19 therapy.

Haematological profile of COVID-19 patients from a centre in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Haematological markers such as absolute lymphopenia have been associated with severe COVID-19 infection. However, in the literature to date, the cohorts described have typically included patients who were moderate to severely unwell with pneumonia and who required intensive care stay. It is uncertain if these markers apply to a population with less severe illness. We sought to describe the haematological profile of patients with mild disease with COVID-19 admitted to a single centre in Singapore. METHODS: We examined 554 consecutive PCR positive SARS-COV-2 patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare institution from Feb 2020 to April 2020. In all patients a full blood count was obtained within 24 h of presentation. RESULTS: Patients with pneumonia had higher neutrophil percentages (66.5 ± 11.6 vs 55.2 ± 12.6%, p < 0.001), lower absolute lymphocyte count (1.5 ± 1.1 vs 1.9 ± 2.1 x109/L, p < 0.011) and absolute eosinophil count (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 0.7 ± 1.8 × 109/L, p = 0.002). Platelet counts (210 ± 56 vs 230 ± 61, p = 0.020) were slightly lower in the group with pneumonia. We did not demonstrate significant differences in the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio in patients with or without pneumonia. Sixty-eight patients (12.3%) had peripheral eosinophilia. This was more common in migrant workers living in dormitories. CONCLUSION: Neutrophilia and lymphopenia were found to be markers associated with severe COVID-19 illness. We did not find that combined haematological parameters: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio, had any association with disease severity in our cohort of patients with mild-moderate disease. Migrant workers living in dormitories had eosinophilia which may reflect concurrent chronic parasitic infection.

The relationship between asthma, eosinophilia, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 infection.

BACKGROUND: The impact of asthma diagnosis and asthma endotype on outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between asthma diagnosis and endotype and clinical outcomes among patients diagnosed as having COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study of outpatients and inpatients presenting to 6 hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System New York metropolitan region between March 7, 2020, and June 7, 2020, with COVID-19 infection, with and without a history of asthma. The primary outcome evaluated was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and hospital length of stay. The outcomes were compared in patients with or without asthma using a multivariate Cox regression model. The outcomes stratified by blood eosinophilia count were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 10,523 patients diagnosed as having COVID-19 infection, 4902 were hospitalized and 468 had a diagnosis of asthma (4.4%). When adjusted for COVID-19 disease severity, comorbidities, and concurrent therapies, patients with asthma had a lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.64 (0.53-0.77); P < .001) and a lower rate of hospitalization and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.43 (0.28-0.64); P < .001 and OR, 0.51 (0.41-0.64); P < .001, respectively). Those with blood eosinophils greater than or equal to 200 cells/µL, both with and without asthma, had lower mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma may be at a reduced risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection. Eosinophilia, both in those with and without asthma, may be associated with reduced mortality risk.

Eosinophilia in Asthma Patients Is Protective Against Severe COVID-19 Illness.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in asthmatics. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with admission and subsequent mortality among COVID-19-infected asthmatics. METHODS: Adults at our institution with a positive polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19 between March 14 and April 27, 2020, were retrospectively identified. Comorbidities, laboratory results, and mortality rates during hospitalization were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 737 of 951 (77.5%) asthma patients with COVID-19 were seen in the emergency department (ED), and 78.8% of these ED patients (581 of 737) were admitted. Individuals with previously measured mean absolute eosinophil counts (AEC) ≥150 cells/µL were less likely to be admitted (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.98, P = .04), whereas concomitant heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were risk factors for admission. Hospitalized patients with asthma with peak hospital-measured AEC ≥150 cells/µL (n = 104) were less likely to die compared with those whose AEC remained <150 cells/µL (n = 213) (mortality rate 9.6% vs 25.8%; OR = 0.006, 95% CI: 0.0001-0.64, P = .03). This group had also higher preadmission mean AEC (237 ± 181 vs 163 ± 147 cells/µL, P = .001, OR = 2012, 95% CI: 27.3-14,816). The mortality rate in patients with asthma alone (no associated CHF, CKD, COPD, diabetes, or hypertension) was similar to that of patients without asthma or any of these comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatics, pre-existing eosinophilia (AEC ≥150 cells/µL) was protective from COVID-19-associated admission, and development of eosinophilia (AEC ≥150 cells/µL) during hospitalization was associated with decreased mortality. Preadmission AEC influenced the AEC trend during hospitalization. Having a Th2-asthma phenotype might be an important predictor for reduced COVID-19 morbidity and mortality that should be further explored in prospective and mechanistic studies.

Association between COVID-19 prognosis and disease presentation, comorbidities and chronic treatment of hospitalized patients.

IMPORTANCE: The rapid pandemic expansion of the disease caused by the new SARS-CoV-2 virus has compromised health systems worldwide. Knowledge of prognostic factors in affected patients can help optimize care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between the prognosis of COVID-19 and the form of presentation of the disease, the previous pathologies of patients and their chronic treatments. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND LOCATIONS: This was an observational study on a cohort of 418 patients admitted to three regional hospitals in Catalonia (Spain). As primary outcomes, severe disease (need for oxygen therapy via nonrebreather mask or mechanical ventilation) and death were studied. Multivariate binary logistic regression models were performed to study the association between the different factors and the results. RESULTS: Advanced age, male sex and obesity were independent markers of poor prognosis. The most frequent presenting symptom was fever, while dyspnea was associated with severe disease and the presence of cough with greater survival. Low oxygen saturation in the emergency room, elevated CRP in the emergency room and initial radiological involvement were all related to worse prognosis. The presence of eosinophilia (% of eosinophils) was an independent marker of less severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the most robust markers of poor prognosis for COVID-19. These results can help to correctly stratify patients at the beginning of hospitalization based on the risk of developing severe disease.

Eosinophilic folliculitis due to wearing protective gear in citizens volunteering for sanitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic - an original epidemiological, clinical, dermoscopic, and laboratory-based study.

BACKGROUND: An association between wearing protective gear and eosinophilic folliculitis has not been reported. We aimed to investigate such during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In three outpatient clinics, we hand-reviewed records of all patients having consulted us during a Study Period (90 days) in the early phase of the pandemic. Our inclusion criteria for Study Subjects were: (i) clear clinical diagnosis, (ii) dermoscopic confirmation, (iii) differential diagnoses excluded, (iv) eosinophilia, (v) protective gear worn during sanitation services, (vi) temporal correlation, (vii) distributional correlation, (viii) physician-assessed association, and (ix) patient-assessed association. Control Periods in the same season were elected. RESULTS: Twenty-five study subjects fulfilled all inclusion criteria. The incidence was significantly higher than in the control periods (IR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.79-7.43). Male predominance was significant (P < 0.001). Such for patients in the control periods were insignificant. Study subjects were 21.2 (95% CI: 11.0-31.4) years younger than patients in the control periods. For the study subjects, the distribution of erythematous or skin-colored folliculocentric dome-shaped papules and pustules were all compatible with body parts covered by the gear. Lesional biopsy performed on two patients revealed eosinophilic dermal infiltrates within and around the pilosebaceous units. Polarized dermoscopy revealed folliculitis with peri-/interfollicular vascular proliferation. Lesion onsets were 6.4 (SD: 2.1) days after wearing gear. Remissions were 16.7 (SD: 7.5) days after ceasing to wear gear and treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing protective gear in volunteered sanitizing works could be associated with eosinophilic folliculitis. Owing to the significant temporal and distributional correlations, the association might be causal.