BACKGROUND: Few population-based studies have evaluated the epidemiology of infective endocarditis (IE). Changes in population demographics and guidelines on IE may have affected both the incidence and outcomes of IE. Therefore, the aim of our study is to provide contemporary population-based epidemiological data of IE in Spain. METHODS: Retrospective nationwide observational study using data from the Spanish National Health System Discharge Database. We included all patients hospitalized with IE from January 2000 to December 2019. RESULTS: A total of 64,550 IE episodes were included. The incidence of IE rose from 5.25 cases/100,000 person-year in 2000 to 7.21 in 2019, with a 2% annual percentage change (95% CI 1.3-2.6). IE incidence was higher among those aged 85 or older (43.5 cases/100.000 person-years). Trends across the study period varied with sex and age. Patients with IE were progressively older (63.9 years in 2000-2004 to 70.0 in 2015-2019, p < 0.001) and had more frequent comorbidities and predispositions, including, previous valvular prosthesis (12.1% vs 20.9%, p < 0.001). After adjustment, a progressive reduction in mortality was noted including in 2015-2019 compared to 2010-2014 (adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 95% confident interval 0.88-0.99, p = 0.023)., which was associated with more frequent cardiac surgery in recent years (15.1% in 2010-2014 vs 19.9% in 2015-2019). CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, the incidence of IE has increased during the XXI century, with a more pronounced increase in elderly individuals. Adjusted-mortality decreased over the years, which could be related to a higher percentage of surgery. Our results highlight the changing epidemiology of IE.
Endocarditis, Bacterial , Endocarditis , Aged , Humans , Spain/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Endocarditis, Bacterial/epidemiology , Endocarditis, Bacterial/surgery , Endocarditis/epidemiology , Endocarditis/surgery , Prognosis , Incidence
BackgroundIn this international multicenter study we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30-day mortality and the impact of novel treatment modalities in a large group of cancer and non-cancer patients with COVID-19 from multiple countries. MethodsWe retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of cancer and non-cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020, from 16 international centers. ResultsWe analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 cancer and 2851 non-cancer patients. Cancer patients were more likely to be pancytopenic, and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding two weeks (p[≤]0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin and procalcitonin), but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p[≤]0.01). By multivariable logistic regression analysis, cancer was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.07; p=0.035). Older age ([≥]65 years) was the strongest predictor of 30-day mortality in all patients (OR 4.55; 95% CI 3.34 to6.20; p< 0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR 0.58; CI 0.39-0.88; p=0.009). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30-day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9% vs 17.6%; p=0.03). ConclusionsCancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality from COVID-19. Remdesivir, particularly in patients receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30-day all-cause mortality. Condensed AbstractIn this large multicenter worldwide study of 4015 patients with COVID-19 that included 1115 patients with cancer, we found that cancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality. Remdesivir is a promising treatment modality to reduce 30-day all-cause mortality.
BackgroundWe aimed to determine the impact of tocilizumab use in severe COVID-19 pneumonia mortality. MethodsWe performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 18 tertiary hospitals in Spain, from March to April 2020. Consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab were compared to patients not treated with tocilizumab, adjusting by Inverse Probability of the Treatment Weights (IPTW). Tocilizumab effect in patients receiving steroids during the 48h following inclusion was analyzed. ResultsDuring the study period, 506 patients with severe COVID-19 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 268 were treated with tocilizumab and 238 patients were not. Median time to tocilizumab treatment from onset of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 8-14). Global mortality was 23.7%. Mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in controls (16.8% versus 31.5%, HR 0.514 [95CI 0.355-0.744], p< 0.001; weighted HR 0.741 [95CI 0.619-0.887], p = 0.001). Tocilizumab treatment reduced mortality by 14.7% relative to no tocilizumab treatment (RRR 46.7%). We calculated a number necessary to treat of 7. Among patients treated with steroids, mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in those treated with steroids alone (10.9% versus 40.2%, HR 0.511 [95CI 0.352-0.741], p = 0.036; weighted HR 0.6 [95CI 0.449-0.804], p< 0.001) (Interaction p = 0.094). ConclusionsThese results show that survival of patients with severe COVID-19 is higher in patients treated with tocilizumab than in those not treated, and that tocilizumab effect adds to that of steroids administered to non-intubated cases with COVID-19 during the first 48 hours of presenting with respiratory failure despite of oxygen therapy. Randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm these results. SummaryWe investigated in-hospital mortality of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a multicenter series of patients treated with tocilizumab compared to controls, and adjusted using IPTW. Our results show a beneficial impact of tocilizumab treatment in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, that adds to that of steroids.
BackgroundPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking. MethodsWe conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15. ResultsThe trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. ConclusionsConvalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).
BackgroundCOVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods/DesignThe ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The protocol has been prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to categories 5, 6 or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DiscussionThis clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. Trial registrationTrial registration at clinicaltrials.gov; Registration Number: NCT04345523; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345523; Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.
BackgroundCOVID-19 infection has led to an overwhelming effort by health institutions to meet the high demand for hospital admissions. AimTo analyse the clinical variables associated with readmission of patients who had previously been discharged after admission for COVID-19. Design and methodsWe studied a retrospective cohort of patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted and subsequently discharged alive. We then conducted a nested case-control study paired (1:1 ratio) by age, sex and period of admission. ResultsOut of 1368 patients who were discharged during the study period, 61 patients (4.4%) were readmitted. Immunocompromised patients were at increased risk for readmission. There was also a trend towards a higher probability of readmission in hypertensive patients (p=0.07). Cases had had a shorter hospital stay and a higher prevalence of fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge. There were no significant differences in oxygen levels measured at admission and discharge by pulse oximetry intra-subject or between the groups. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio at hospital admission tended to be higher in cases than in controls (p=0.06). The motive for readmission in 10 patients (16.4%), was a thrombotic event in venous or arterial territory (p<0.001). Neither glucocorticoids nor anticoagulants prescribed at hospital discharge were associated with a lower readmission rate. ConclusionsThe rate of readmission after discharge from hospital for COVID-19 was low. Immunocompromised patients and those presenting with fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge are at greater risk of readmission to hospital.
ObjectiveWe aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. DesignWe performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study. SettingA University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. ParticipantsPatients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. ExposuresPatients treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids. A propensity-score for steroid treatment was developed. Different steroid regimens were also compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Main Outcomes and MeasuresTo determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed, and adjusted including the propensity score as a covariate. Survival times were compared using a log-rank test. ResultsDuring the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) consecutive patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were assigned to the control cohort. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8 to13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], OR 0.51 [0.27 to 0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048 to 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone (or equivalent) versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). ConclusionsOur results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone or equivalent and glucocorticoid pulses. These results support the use of glucocorticoids in SARS-CoV2 infection. SummaryWe investigated in-hospital mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a large series of patients treated with steroids compared to controls, and adjusted using a propensity score. Our results show a beneficial impact of steroid treatment in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.
