Assessing the impact of long-term inhaled corticosteroid therapy on patients with COVID-19 and coexisting chronic lung disease: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Background: Patients with chronic lung disease (CLD), such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were expected to have an increased risk of clinical manifestations and severity of COVID-19. However, these comorbidities have been reported less frequently than expected. Chronic treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may impact the clinical course of COVID-19. The main objective of this study is to know the influence of chronic treatment with ICS on the prognosis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients with CLD. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was designed, including patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected at admission and at seven days, and clinical outcomes were collected. Patients with CLD with and without chronic treatment with ICS were compared. Results: Two thousand five hundred ninety-eight patients were included, of which 1,171 patients had a diagnosis of asthma and 1,427 of COPD (53.37% and 41.41% with ICS, respectively). No differences were found in mortality, transfer to ICU, or development of moderate-severe ARDS. Patients with chronic ICS had a longer hospital stay in both asthma and COPD patients (9 vs. 8 days, p = 0.031 in asthma patients), (11 vs. 9 days, p = 0.018 in COPD patients); although they also had more comorbidity burden. Conclusions: Patients with chronic inhaled corticosteroids had longer hospital stays and more chronic comorbidities, measured by the Charlson comorbidity index, but they did not have more severe disease at admission, evaluated with qSOFA and PSI scores. Chronic treatment with inhaled corticosteroids had no influence on the prognosis of patients with chronic lung disease and COVID-19.

Nosocomial COVID-19: A Nationwide Spanish Study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious virus, and despite professionals' best efforts, nosocomial COVID-19 (NC) infections have been reported. This work aimed to describe differences in symptoms and outcomes between patients with NC and community-acquired COVID-19 (CAC) and to identify risk factors for severe outcomes among NC patients. METHODS: This is a nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study that analyzed patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. NC was defined as patients admitted for non-COVID-19 diseases with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test on the fifth day of hospitalization or later. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality (IHM). The secondary outcome was other COVID-19-related complications. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 23,219 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,104 (4.8%) were NC. Compared to CAC patients, NC patients were older (median 76 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 vs. 3; p < 0.001), were less symptomatic (p < 0.001), and had normal chest X-rays more frequently (30.8% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for sex, age, dependence, COVID-19 wave, and comorbidities, NC was associated with lower risk of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87; p < 0.001) and higher risk of acute heart failure (aOR: 1.40; 1.12-1.72; p = 0.003), sepsis (aOR: 1.73; 1.33-2.54; p < 0.001), and readmission (aOR: 1.35; 1.03-1.83; p = 0.028). NC was associated with a higher case fatality rate (39.1% vs. 19.2%) in all age groups. IHM was significantly higher among NC patients (aOR: 2.07; 1.81-2.68; p < 0.001). Risk factors for increased IHM in NC patients were age, moderate/severe dependence, malignancy, dyspnea, moderate/severe ARDS, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and shock; odynophagia was associated with lower IHM. CONCLUSIONS: NC is associated with greater mortality and complications compared to CAC. Hospital strategies to prevent NC must be strengthened.

WHO Ordinal Scale and Inflammation Risk Categories in COVID-19. Comparative Study of the Severity Scales.

BACKGROUND: The WHO ordinal severity scale has been used to predict mortality and guide trials in COVID-19. However, it has its limitations. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare three classificatory and predictive models: the WHO ordinal severity scale, the model based on inflammation grades, and the hybrid model. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with patient data collected and followed up from March 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, from the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. As this was a hospital-based study, the patients included corresponded to categories 3 to 7 of the WHO ordinal scale. Categories 6 and 7 were grouped in the same category. KEY RESULTS: A total of 17,225 patients were included in the study. Patients classified as high risk in each of the WHO categories according to the degree of inflammation were as follows: 63.8% vs. 79.9% vs. 90.2% vs. 95.1% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for WHO ordinal scale categories 3 to 6/7 was as follows: 0.8% vs. 24.3% vs. 45.3% vs. 34% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the combined categories of ordinal scale 3a to 5b was as follows: 0.4% vs. 1.1% vs. 11.2% vs. 27.5% vs. 35.5% vs. 41.1% (p<0.001). The predictive regression model for in-hospital mortality with our proposed combined ordinal scale reached an AUC=0.871, superior to the two models separately. CONCLUSIONS: The present study proposes a new severity grading scale for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In our opinion, it is the most informative, representative, and predictive scale in COVID-19 patients to date.

Screening Protocol and Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) induces endothelial damage and sustained hypoxia and facilitates immobilization as factors of hypercoagulability. OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to assess the prevalence of venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) in COVID-19 patients and the usefulness of VTD screening based on age-adjusted D-dimer and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). PATIENTS/METHODS: We conducted a single cohort, prospective observational study in 102 consecutive hospitalized patients. RESULTS: A total of 102 POCUS and 39 pulmonary computed tomography angiography (PCTA) were performed diagnosing 27 VTD (26.5%): 17 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (16.6% positive POCUS) and 18 pulmonary embolism (PE) (46.2% positive PCTA). COVID-19 patients with VTD were older (P < .030), had higher D-dimer (P < .001), higher International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis score (P < .001), and higher mortality (P = .025). However, there were no differences in inflammatory laboratory parameters neither in the cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) development. The ROC curve for D-dimer showed an AUC of 0.91. We have evidenced that patients with D-dimer between 2000 and 6000 ng/mL could benefit from a screening strategy with POCUS given the high sensitivity and specificity of the test. Furthermore, patients with D-dimer ≥6000 ng/mL should undergo POCUS and PCTA to rule out DVT and PE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, 26.5% of the patients presented VTD. Screening strategy based on age-adjusted D-dimer and POCUS proved high sensitivity and specificity. Future trials focused on screening strategies are necessary to early detect the presence of DVT and PE and determine thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19.

Estimation of Admission D-dimer Cut-off Value to Predict Venous Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are frequent in COVID-19, and elevated plasma D-dimer (pDd) and dyspnea are common in both entities. OBJECTIVE: To determine the admission pDd cut-off value associated with in-hospital VTE in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study analyzing the at-admission pDd cut-off value to predict VTE and anticoagulation intensity along hospitalization due to COVID-19. RESULTS: Among 9386 patients, 2.2% had VTE: 1.6% pulmonary embolism (PE), 0.4% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and 0.2% both. Those with VTE had a higher prevalence of tachypnea (42.9% vs. 31.1%; p = 0.0005), basal O2 saturation <93% (45.4% vs. 33.1%; p = 0.0003), higher at admission pDd (median [IQR]: 1.4 [0.6-5.5] vs. 0.6 [0.4-1.2] µg/ml; p < 0.0001) and platelet count (median [IQR]: 208 [158-289] vs. 189 [148-245] platelets × 109/L; p = 0.0013). A pDd cut-off of 1.1 µg/ml showed specificity 72%, sensitivity 49%, positive predictive value (PPV) 4%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 99% for in-hospital VTE. A cut-off value of 4.7 µg/ml showed specificity of 95%, sensitivity of 27%, PPV of 9%, and NPV of 98%. Overall mortality was proportional to pDd value, with the lowest incidence for each pDd category depending on anticoagulation intensity: 26.3% for those with pDd >1.0 µg/ml treated with prophylactic dose (p < 0.0001), 28.8% for pDd for patients with pDd >2.0 µg/ml treated with intermediate dose (p = 0.0001), and 31.3% for those with pDd >3.0 µg/ml and full anticoagulation (p = 0.0183). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a pDd value greater than 3.0 µg/ml can be considered to screen VTE and to consider full-dose anticoagulation.

Inadequate use of antibiotics in the covid-19 era: effectiveness of antibiotic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the concept of medicine. This work aims to analyze the use of antibiotics in patients admitted to the hospital due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This work analyzes the use and effectiveness of antibiotics in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry, an initiative to generate knowledge about this disease using data from electronic medical records. Our primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to antibiotic use. The secondary endpoint was the effect of macrolides on mortality. RESULTS: Of 13,932 patients, antibiotics were used in 12,238. The overall death rate was 20.7% and higher among those taking antibiotics (87.8%). Higher mortality was observed with use of all antibiotics (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62; p < .001) except macrolides, which had a higher survival rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.76; p < .001). The decision to start antibiotics was influenced by presence of increased inflammatory markers and any kind of infiltrate on an x-ray. Patients receiving antibiotics required respiratory support and were transferred to intensive care units more often. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial co-infection was uncommon among COVID-19 patients, yet use of antibiotics was high. There is insufficient evidence to support widespread use of empiric antibiotics in these patients. Most may not require empiric treatment and if they do, there is promising evidence regarding azithromycin as a potential COVID-19 treatment.

[Ebola virus disease: Update]. / Enfermedad por virus ebola: actualización.

The first known Ebola outbreak occurred in 1976. Since then, 24 limited outbreaks had been reported in Central Africa, but never affecting more than 425 persons. The current outbreak in Western Africa is the largest in history with 28,220 reported cases and 11,291 deaths. The magnitude of the epidemic has caused worldwide alarm. For the first time, evacuated patients were treated outside Africa, and secondary cases have occurred in Spain and the United States. Since the start of the current epidemic, our knowledge about the epidemiology, clinical picture, laboratory findings, and virology of Ebola virus disease has considerably expanded. For the first time, experimental treatment has been tried, and there have been spectacular advances in vaccine development. A review is presented of these advances in the knowledge of Ebola virus disease.

Mortality reduction in older COVID-19-patients hospitalized in Spain during the second pandemic wave from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic followed a two-wave pattern in most countries. Hospital admission for COVID-19 in one wave or another could have affected mortality, especially among the older persons. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the admission of older patients during the different waves, before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was available, was associated with a different mortality. We compared the mortality rates of patients hospitalized during 2020 before (first wave) and after (second wave) July 7, 2020, included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients admitted to 126 Spanish hospitals for COVID-19. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to control for changes in either the patient or disease profile. As of December 26, 2022, 22,494 patients had been included (17,784 from the first wave and 4710 from the second one). Overall mortality was 20.4% in the first wave and 17.2% in the second wave (risk difference (RD) - 3.2%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 4.4 to - 2.0). Only patients aged 70 and older (10,973 patients: 8571 in the first wave and 2386 in the second wave) had a significant reduction in mortality (RD - 7.6%; 95% CI - 9.7 to - 5.5) (unadjusted relative risk reduction: 21.6%). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, variables related to the severity of the disease, and treatment received, admission during the second wave remained a protective factor. In Spain, patients aged 70 years and older admitted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly lower risk of mortality, except in severely dependent persons in need of corticosteroid treatment. This effect is independent of patient characteristics, disease severity, or treatment received. This suggests a protective effect of a better standard of care, greater clinical expertise, or a lesser degree of healthcare system overload.

Improving prediction of COVID-19 mortality using machine learning in the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry.

COVID-19 is responsible for high mortality, but robust machine learning-based predictors of mortality are lacking. To generate a model for predicting mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT). The Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry includes 24,514 pseudo-anonymized cases of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 5 December 2021. This registry was used as a GBDT machine learning model, employing the CatBoost and BorutaShap classifier to select the most relevant indicators and generate a mortality prediction model by risk level, ranging from 0 to 1. The model was validated by separating patients according to admission date, using the period 1 February to 31 December 2020 (first and second waves, pre-vaccination period) for training, and 1 January to 30 November 2021 (vaccination period) for the test group. An ensemble of ten models with different random seeds was constructed, separating 80% of the patients for training and 20% from the end of the training period for cross-validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was used as a performance metric. Clinical and laboratory data from 23,983 patients were analyzed. CatBoost mortality prediction models achieved an AUC performance of 84.76 (standard deviation 0.45) for patients in the test group (potentially vaccinated patients not included in model training) using 16 features. The performance of the 16-parameter GBDT model for predicting COVID-19 hospital mortality, although requiring a relatively large number of predictors, shows a high predictive capacity.

C-Reactive Protein and Serum Albumin Ratio: A Feasible Prognostic Marker in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

(1) Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin are inflammatory markers. We analyzed the prognostic capacity of serum albumin (SA) and CRP for an outcome comprising mortality, length of stay, ICU admission, and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the Spanish national SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Two multivariate logistic models were adjusted for SA, CRP, and their combination. Training and testing samples were used to validate the models. (3) Results: The outcome was present in 41.1% of the 3471 participants, who had lower SA (mean [SD], 3.5 [0.6] g/dL vs. 3.8 [0.5] g/dL; p < 0.001) and higher CRP (108.9 [96.5] mg/L vs. 70.6 [70.3] mg/L; p < 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate model, both were associated with poorer evolution: SA, OR 0.674 (95% CI, 0.551−0.826; p < 0.001); CRP, OR 1.002 (95% CI, 1.001−1.004; p = 0.003). The CRP/SA model had a similar predictive capacity (honest AUC, 0.8135 [0.7865−0.8405]), with a continuously increasing risk and cutoff value of 25 showing the highest predictive capacity (OR, 1.470; 95% CI, 1.188−1.819; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: SA and CRP are good independent predictors of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. For the CRP/SA ratio value, 25 is the cutoff for poor clinical course.

Ethnicity and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain: Results from the Multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

(1) Background: This work aims to analyze clinical outcomes according to ethnic groups in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain. (2) Methods: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study analyzed hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to ethnicity (Latin Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, North Africans, Europeans). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality (IHM), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Associations between ethnic groups and clinical outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index values and wave were evaluated using logistic regression. (3) Results: Of 23,953 patients (median age 69.5 years, 42.9% women), 7.0% were Latin American, 1.2% were North African, 0.5% were Asian, 0.5% were Sub-Saharan African, and 89.7% were European. Ethnic minority patients were significantly younger than European patients (median (IQR) age 49.1 (40.5−58.9) to 57.1 (44.1−67.1) vs. 71.5 (59.5−81.4) years, p < 0.001). The unadjusted IHM was higher in European (21.6%) versus North African (11.4%), Asian (10.9%), Latin American (7.1%), and Sub-Saharan African (3.2%) patients. After further adjustment, the IHM was lower in Sub-Saharan African (OR 0.28 (0.10−0.79), p = 0.017) versus European patients, while ICU admission rates were higher in Latin American and North African versus European patients (OR (95%CI) 1.37 (1.17−1.60), p < 0.001) and (OR (95%CI) 1.74 (1.26−2.41), p < 0.001). Moreover, Latin American patients were 39% more likely than European patients to use IMV (OR (95%CI) 1.43 (1.21−1.71), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The adjusted IHM was similar in all groups except for Sub-Saharan Africans, who had lower IHM. Latin American patients were admitted to the ICU and required IMV more often.

Use of glucocorticoids megadoses in SARS-CoV-2 infection in a spanish registry: SEMI-COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. METHODS: Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. RESULTS: Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59-79] vs 73 years [IQR 61-83]; p < .001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91-2.24 p < .001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.80; p < .001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p .298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p < .001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses.

Influence of smoking history on the evolution of hospitalized in COVID-19 positive patients: results from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry. / Influencia de la historia de tabaquismo en la evolución de la hospitalización en pacientes COVID-19 positivos: datos del registro SEMI-COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking can play a key role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the course of the disease. Previous studies have conflicting or inconclusive results on the prevalence of smoking and the severity of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). METHODS: Observational, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 14,260 patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spanish hospitals between February and September 2020. Their clinical characteristics were recorded and the patients were classified into a smoking group (active or former smokers) or a non-smoking group (never smokers). The patients were followed up to one month after discharge. Differences between groups were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression and Kapplan Meier curves analyzed the relationship between smoking and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The median age was 68.6 (55.8-79.1) years, with 57.7% of males. Smoking patients were older (69.9 [59.6-78.0 years]), more frequently male (80.3%) and with higher Charlson index (4 [2-6]) than non-smoking patients. Smoking patients presented a worse evolution, with a higher rate of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (10.4 vs 8.1%), higher in-hospital mortality (22.5 vs. 16.4%) and readmission at one month (5.8 vs. 4.0%) than in non-smoking patients. After multivariate analysis, smoking remained associated with these events. CONCLUSIONS: Active or past smoking is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. It is associated with higher ICU admissions and in-hospital mortality.

Influence of smoking history on the evolution of hospitalized in COVID-19 positive patients: Results from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry.

Introduction: Smoking can play a key role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the course of the disease. Previous studies have conflicting or inconclusive results on the prevalence of smoking and the severity of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Methods: Observational, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 14,260 patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spanish hospitals between February and September 2020. Their clinical characteristics were recorded and the patients were classified into a smoking group (active or former smokers) or a non-smoking group (never smokers). The patients were followed up to one month after discharge. Differences between groups were analysed. A multivariate logistic regression and Kapplan Meier curves analysed the relationship between smoking and in-hospital mortality. Results: The median age was 68.6 (55.8-79.1) years, with 57.7% of males. Smoking patients were older (69.9 (59.6-78.0 years)), more frequently male (80.3%) and with higher Charlson index (4 (2-6)) than non-smoking patients. Smoking patients presented a worse evolution, with a higher rate of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (10.4 vs. 8.1%), higher in-hospital mortality (22.5 vs. 16.4%) and readmission at one month (5.8 vs. 4.0%) than in non-smoking patients. After multivariate analysis, smoking remained associated with these events. Conclusions: Active or past smoking is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. It is associated with higher ICU admissions and in-hospital mortality.

Introducción: El tabaquismo puede tener un papel importante en la infección por SARS-CoV-2 y en el curso de la enfermedad. Los estudios previos muestran resultados contradictorios o no concluyentes sobre la prevalencia de fumar y la severidad en la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19). Material y métodos: Estudio de cohortes observacional, multicéntrico y retrospectivo de 14.260 pacientes que ingresaron por COVID-19 en hospitales españoles desde febrero a septiembre de 2020. Se registraron sus características clínicas y se clasificaron en el grupo con tabaquismo si tabaquismo activo o previo o en el grupo sin tabaquismo si nunca habían fumado. Se realizó un seguimiento hasta un mes después del alta. Se analizaron las diferencias entre grupos. La relación entre tabaquismo y mortalidad intrahospitalaria se valoró mediante una regresión logística multivariante y curvas de Kapplan Meier. Resultados: La mediana de edad fue 68,6 (55,8­79,1) años, con un 57,7% de varones. El grupo con tabaquismo presentó mayor edad (69,9 (59,6­78,0 años)), predominio masculino (80,3%) y mayor índice de Charlson (4 (2−6)). La evolución fue peor en estos pacientes, con una mayor tasa de ingreso en UCI (10,4 vs 8,1%), mayor mortalidad intrahospitalaria (22,5 vs 16,4%) y reingreso al mes (5,8 vs 4,0%) que el grupo sin tabaquismo. Tras el análisis multivariante, el tabaquismo permanecía asociado a estos eventos. Conclusiones: El tabaquismo de forma activa o pasada es un factor predictor independiente de mal pronóstico en los pacientes con COVID-19, estando asociada a mayor probabilidad de ingreso en UCI y a mayor mortalidad intrahospitalaria.

Cancer-Associated Retinopathy and Treatment with Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy. A Seldom Used Approach?

Purpose: To report a case of cancer-associated retinophaty (CAR) treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IGIV) and review the use of IGIV in the treatment of CARMethods: Case report: A 68-year-old woman, former smoker, presented with bilateral subacute decreased visual acuity with 1 month of evolution, without other symptoms. Clinical examination revealed retinal atrophy and a mild vitritis component. Treatment with corticosteroid and IGIV was initiated empirically with the stabilization of visual loss. Anti-recoverin antibodies tested positive and a small cell lung carcinoma was diagnosed. In a review of the literature, we found that only 12 cases of patients treated with intravenous immunoglobulins have been reported.Conclusions: the early use of IVIG could contribute to an improvement and/or stabilization of visual symptoms in this patient group due to its rapid effect and lower profile of adverse effects when administered with chemotherapy.

Predicting critical illness on initial diagnosis of COVID-19 based on easily obtained clinical variables: development and validation of the PRIORITY model.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and validate a prediction model, based on clinical history and examination findings on initial diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to identify patients at risk of critical outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from 132 centres in Spain (23rd March to 21st May 2020). For the development cohort, tertiary referral hospitals were selected, while the validation cohort included smaller hospitals. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or admission to intensive care unit. Clinical signs and symptoms, demographics, and medical history ascertained at presentation were screened using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and logistic regression was used to construct the predictive model. RESULTS: There were 10 433 patients, 7850 in the development cohort (primary outcome 25.1%, 1967/7850) and 2583 in the validation cohort (outcome 27.0%, 698/2583). The PRIORITY model included: age, dependency, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, dyspnoea, tachypnoea, confusion, systolic blood pressure, and SpO2 ≤93% or oxygen requirement. The model showed high discrimination for critical illness in both the development (C-statistic 0.823; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813, 0.834) and validation (C-statistic 0.794; 95%CI 0.775, 0.813) cohorts. A freely available web-based calculator was developed based on this model (https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/2344). CONCLUSIONS: The PRIORITY model, based on easily obtained clinical information, had good discrimination and generalizability for identifying COVID-19 patients at risk of critical outcomes.

Inappropriate antibiotic use in the COVID-19 era: Factors associated with inappropriate prescribing and secondary complications. Analysis of the registry SEMI-COVID.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite the fact that bacterial co-infections are rare. This can lead to increased complications, including antibacterial resistance. We aim to analyze risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in these patients and describe possible complications arising from their use. METHODS: The SEMI-COVID-19 Registry is a multicenter, retrospective patient cohort. Patients with antibiotic were divided into two groups according to appropriate or inappropriate prescription, depending on whether the patient fulfill any criteria for its use. Comparison was made by means of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Possible complications of antibiotic use were also identified. RESULTS: Out of 13,932 patients, 3047 (21.6%) were prescribed no antibiotics, 6116 (43.9%) were appropriately prescribed antibiotics, and 4769 (34.2%) were inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. The following were independent factors of inappropriate prescription: February-March 2020 admission (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.18-2.00), age (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99), absence of comorbidity (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.05-1.94), dry cough (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.94-3.26), fever (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.13-1.56), dyspnea (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.69), flu-like symptoms (OR 2.70, 95%CI 1.75-4.17), and elevated C-reactive protein levels (OR 1.01 for each mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients who received ANTIBIOTIC (4.9% vs 2.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The inappropriate use of antibiotics was very frequent in COVID-19 patients and entailed an increased risk of adverse reactions. It is crucial to define criteria for their use in these patients. Knowledge of the factors associated with inappropriate prescribing can be helpful.

Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors for Mortality in Very Old Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is a well-known risk factor for poor prognosis in COVID-19. However, few studies have specifically focused on very old inpatients with COVID-19. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics of very old inpatients with COVID-19 and identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality at admission. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized with COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19) Registry (March 1-May 29, 2020). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A uni- and multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of mortality at admission. RESULTS: A total of 2772 consecutive patients (49.4% men, median age 86.3 years) were analyzed. Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, dementia, and Barthel Index < 60 were 30.8%, 25.6%, 30.5%, and 21.0%, respectively. The overall case-fatality rate was 46.9% (n: 1301) and increased with age (80-84 years: 41.6%; 85-90 years: 47.3%; 90-94 years: 52.7%; ≥95 years: 54.2%). After analysis, male sex and moderate-to-severe dependence were independently associated with in-hospital mortality; comorbidities were not predictive. At admission, independent risk factors for death were: oxygen saturation < 90%; temperature ≥ 37.8°C; quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score ≥ 2; and unilateral-bilateral infiltrates on chest x-rays. Some analytical findings were independent risk factors for death, including estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 500 U/L; C-reactive protein ≥ 80 mg/L; neutrophils ≥ 7.5 × 103/µL; lymphocytes < 0.8 × 103/µL; and monocytes < 0.5 × 103/µL. CONCLUSIONS: This first large, multicenter cohort of very old inpatients with COVID-19 shows that age, male sex, and poor preadmission functional status-not comorbidities-are independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Severe COVID-19 at admission is related to poor prognosis.

The Prognostic Value of Eosinophil Recovery in COVID-19: A Multicentre, Retrospective Cohort Study on Patients Hospitalised in Spanish Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: A decrease in blood cell counts, especially lymphocytes and eosinophils, has been described in patients with serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but there is no knowledge of their potential role of the recovery in these patients' prognosis. This article aims to analyse the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. DESIGN: This work was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 9644 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 from the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. SETTING: This study examined patients hospitalised in 147 hospitals throughout Spain. PARTICIPANTS: This work analysed 9644 patients (57.12% male) out of a cohort of 12,826 patients ≥18 years of age hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry as of 29 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure of this work is the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. Univariate analysis was performed to determine possible predictors of death, and then multivariate analysis was carried out to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: An increase in the eosinophil count on the seventh day of hospitalisation was associated with a better prognosis, including lower mortality rates (5.2% vs. 22.6% in non-recoverers, OR 0.234; 95% CI, 0.154 to 0.354) and lower complication rates, especially regarding the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.000) and ICU admission (5.4% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.000). Lymphocyte recovery was found to have no effect on prognosis. Treatment with inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids was not found to be a confounding factor. CONCLUSION: Eosinophil recovery in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalisation had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality and a milder course.