RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients' respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir. METHODS: This was a multicentre observational cohort study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and were treated with dexamethasone. Rapid clinical improvement in response to treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 1 L of supplemental oxygen per minute or discharge from the hospital within 72 h after admission. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between remdesivir and rapid clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rate and hospitalisation duration. RESULTS: Of 871 patients included, 445 were treated with remdesivir. There was no influence of remdesivir on the occurrence of rapid clinical improvement (62% vs 61% OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.40; p = 0.76). The in-hospital mortality was lower (14.7% vs 19.8% OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48-1.02; p = 0.06) for the remdesivir-treated patients. Rapid clinical improvement occurred more often in patients with low C-reactive protein (≤ 75 mg/L) and short duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation (< 7 days) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.56). CONCLUSION: Remdesivir generally does not increase the incidence of rapid clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but it might have an effect in patients with short duration of symptoms and limited signs of systemic inflammation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Modern trauma systems differ worldwide, possibly leading to disparities in outcomes. We aim to compare characteristics and outcomes of blunt polytrauma patients admitted to two Level 1 Trauma Centers in the US (USTC) and the Netherlands (NTC). METHODS: For this retrospective study the records of 1367 adult blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 admitted between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 (640 from NTC, 727 from USTC) were analysed. RESULTS: The USTC group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [standard deviation] 1.15 [2.2] vs. 1.73 [2.8], p<0.0001) and Injury Severity Score (median [interquartile range, IQR] 25 [17-29] vs. 21 [17-26], p<0.0001). The in-hospital mortality was similar in both centers (11% in USTC vs. 10% NTC), also after correction for baseline differences in patient population in a multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.48, p=0.83). USTC patients had a longer Intensive Care Unit stay (median [IQR] 4 [2-11] vs. 2 [2-7] days, p=0.006) but had a shorter hospital stay (median [IQR] 6 [3-13] vs. 8 [4-16] days, p<0.0001). USTC patients were discharged more often to a rehabilitation center (47% vs 10%) and less often to home (46% vs. 66%, p<0.0001), and had a higher readmission rate (8% vs. 4%, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Although several outcome parameters differ in two urban area trauma centers in the USA and the Netherlands, the quality of care for trauma patients, measured as survival, is equal. Other outcomes varied between both trauma centers, suggesting that differences in local policies and processes do influence the care system, but not so much the quality of care as reflected by survival.
