The two different profiles in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and type 2 diabetes mellitus: ischemic and diabetic.

OBJECTIVE: Two profiles of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be discerned: those with ischemic and those with diabetic cardiomyopathy (DMC). We aim to analyze clinical differences and prognosis between patients of these two profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cohort study analyzes data from the Spanish Heart Failure Registry, a multicenter, prospective registry that enrolled patients admitted for decompensated heart failure and followed them for one year. Three groups were created according to the presence of T2DM and heart disease depending on the etiology (ischemic when coronary artery disease was present, or DMC when no coronary, valvular, or congenital heart disease; no hypertension; nor infiltrative cardiovascular disease observed on an endomyocardial biopsy). The groups and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients were analyzed. Group 1 (n = 210) included patients with ischemic etiology and T2DM. Group 2 (n = 112) included patients with DMC etiology and T2DM. Group 3 (n = 144), a control group, included patients with ischemic etiology and without T2DM. Group 1 had more hypertension and dyslipidemia; group 2 had more atrial fibrillation (AF) and higher body mass index; group 3 had more chronic kidney disease and were older. In the regression analysis, group 3 had a better prognosis than group 1 (reference group) for cardiovascular mortality and HF readmissions (HR 0.44;95%CI 0.2-1; p = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and HFpEF, who had the poorest prognosis, were of two different profiles: either ischemic or DMC etiology. The first had a higher burden of cardiovascular disease and inflammation whereas the second had a higher prevalence of obesity and AF. The first had a slightly poorer prognosis than the second, though this finding was not significant.

Effect of semaglutide on fatty liver disease biomarkers in patients with diabetes and obesity.

AIM: This work aims to assess the effect of weekly subcutaneous semaglutide on biomarkers of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), namely the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) and the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, at 24 weeks in outpatients attended to in internal medicine departments. METHODS: This study analyzed patients in an ongoing, multicenter, prospective, pre-post, uncontrolled cohort registry that enrolls unique, consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes treated with weekly subcutaneous semaglutide. Steatosis/fibrosis were determined by HSI (<30 ruled out, >36 steatosis) and FIB-4 (<1.3 ruled out, >2.67 fibrosis), respectively. RESULTS: The sample included 213 patients (46.9% women) with a median age of 64 (19) years. The median baseline body mass index and weight were 36.1 (8.4) kg/m2 and 98 (26.9) kg, respectively. A total of 99.9% had HSI values indicating steatosis, with a mean HSI of 47.9 (8.2). Additionally, 10.8% had fibrosis (FIB-4 > 2.67) and 42.72% had values in intermediate ranges (FIB-4 1.3-2.67). At 24 weeks, there was a significant reduction in HSI (-2.36 (95%CI 1.83-2.9) p < 0.00001) and FIB-4 (-0.075 (95%CI 0.015-0.14) p < 0.016), mainly related to declines in body weight, triglyceride levels, insulin resistance (estimated by the triglyceride-glucose index), and liver enzymes. CONCLUSION: These results show that weekly subcutaneous semaglutide had a beneficial effect on liver steatosis that went beyond glucose control. Its effects were mainly related to weight loss, a decline in biomarkers, and improvements in insulin sensitivity. For many patients, early detection is essential for improving MAFLD outcomes and may allow for selecting the most efficient treatment options.

High-Risk Obesity Phenotypes: Target for Multimorbidity Prevention at the ROFEMI Study.

Background: Describe the profile of patients with obesity in internal medicine to determine the role of adiposity and related inflammation on the metabolic risk profile and, identify various "high-risk obesity" phenotypes by means of a cluster analysis. This study aimed to identify different profiles of patients with high-risk obesity based on a cluster analysis. Methods: Cross-sectional, multicenter project that included outpatients attended to in internal medicine. A total of 536 patients were studied. The mean age was 62 years, 51% were women. Patients were recruited from internal medicine departments over two weeks in November and December 2021 and classified into four risk groups according to body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). High-risk obesity was defined as BMI > 35 Kg/m2 or BMI 30−34.9 Kg/m2 and a high WC (>102 cm for men and >88 cm for women). Hierarchical and partitioning clustering approaches were performed to identify profiles. Results: A total of 462 (86%) subjects were classified into the high-risk obesity group. After excluding 19 patients missing critical data, two profiles emerged: cluster 1 (n = 396) and cluster 2 (n = 47). Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had a worse profile, characterized by older age (77 ± 16 vs. 61 ± 21 years, p < 0.01), a Charlson Comorbidity Index > 3 (53% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), depression (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.008), severe disability (64% vs. 3%, p < 0.001), and a sarcopenia score ≥ 4 (79% vs. 16%, p < 0.01). In addition, cluster 2 had greater inflammation than cluster 1 (hsCRP: 5.8 ± 4.1 vs. 2.1 ± 4.5 mg/dL, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Two profiles of subjects with high-risk obesity were identified. Based on that, older subjects with obesity require measures that target sarcopenia, disability, psychological health, and significant comorbidities to prevent further health deterioration. Longitudinal studies should be performed to identify potential risk factors of subjects who progress from cluster 1 to cluster 2.

Differences in clinical features and mortality in very old unvaccinated patients (≥ 80 years) hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first and successive waves from the multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry (Spain).

BACKGROUND: Old age is one of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19. Few studies have analyzed changes in the clinical characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 among older adults before the availability of vaccines. This work analyzes differences in clinical features and mortality in unvaccinated very old adults during the first and successive COVID-19 waves in Spain. METHODS: This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzes unvaccinated patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Patients were classified according to whether they were admitted in the first wave (March 1-June 30, 2020) or successive waves (July 1-December 31, 2020). The endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, expressed as the case fatality rate (CFR). RESULTS: Of the 21,461 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 5,953 (27.7%) were ≥ 80 years (mean age [IQR]: 85.6 [82.3-89.2] years). Of them, 4,545 (76.3%) were admitted during the first wave and 1,408 (23.7%) during successive waves. Patients hospitalized in successive waves were older, had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index and dependency, less cough and fever, and met fewer severity criteria at admission (qSOFA index, PO2/FiO2 ratio, inflammatory parameters). Significant differences were observed in treatments used in the first (greater use of antimalarials, lopinavir, and macrolides) and successive waves (greater use of corticosteroids, tocilizumab and remdesivir). In-hospital complications, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia, were less frequent in patients hospitalized in successive waves, except for heart failure. The CFR was significantly higher in the first wave (44.1% vs. 33.3%; -10.8%; p < 0.001) and was higher among patients ≥ 95 years (54.4% vs. 38.5%; -15.9%; p < 0.001). After adjustments to the model, the probability of death was 33% lower in successive waves (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality declined significantly between the first and successive waves in very old unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain. This decline could be explained by a greater availability of hospital resources and more effective treatments as the pandemic progressed, although other factors such as changes in SARS-CoV-2 virulence cannot be ruled out.

Prognostic Significance of the PROFUND Index on One Year Mortality in Acute Heart Failure: Results from the RICA Registry.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a syndrome with high prevalence, mainly affecting elderly patients, where the presence of associated comorbidities is of great importance. Methods: An observational study from a prospective registry was conducted. Patients identified from the National Registry of Heart Failure (RICA), which belongs to the Working Group on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), were included. The latter is a prospective, multicenter registry that has been active since 2008. It includes individual consecutive patients over 50 years of age with a diagnosis of HF at hospital discharge (acute decompensated or new-onset HF). Results: In total, 5424 patients were identified from the registry. Forty-seven percent were men and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 51.4%; 1132 had a score of 0 to 2 according to the PROFUND index, 3087 had a score of 3 to 6, and 952 patients had a score of 7 to 10 points. In the sample, 252 patients had a score above 11 points. At the end of the year of follow-up, 61% of the patients died. This mortality increased proportionally as the PROFUND index increased, specifically 75% for patients with PROFUND greater than 11. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows that survival at one year progressively decreases as the PROFUND index value increases. Thus, subjects with scores greater than seven (intermediate-high and high-risk) presented the worst survival with a log rank of 0.96 and a p < 0.05. In the regression analysis, we found a higher risk of death from any cause at one year in the group with the highest risk according to the PROFUND index (score greater than 11 points (HR 1.838 (1.410−2.396)). Conclusions: The PROFUND index is a good index for predicting mortality in patients admitted for acute HF, especially in those subjects at intermediate to high risk with scores above seven. Future studies should seek to determine whether the PROFUND index score is simply a prognostic marker or whether it can also be used to make therapeutic decisions for those subjects with very high short-term mortality.

Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

[Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19]. / Resumen Ejecutivo del Consenso de expertos sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los iDPP-4 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes y COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

Evidence-based therapeutics for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritically ill patients.

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, either with or without diabetes, is a common, serious, and costly healthcare problem. Evidence accumulated over 20 years has associated hyperglycemia with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality, both in surgical and medical patients. Based on this documented link between hyperglycemia and poor outcomes, clinical guidelines from professional organizations recommend the treatment of hospital hyperglycemia with a therapeutic goal of maintaining blood glucose (BG) levels less than 180 mg/dL. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of glycemic management in the inpatient setting. The use of non-insulin antidiabetic drugs in the hospital setting is limited because little data are available regarding their safety and efficacy. However, information about the use of incretin-based therapy in inpatients has increased in the past 15 years. This review aims to summarize the different treatment strategies for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritical patients that are supported by observational studies or clinical trials with insulin and non-insulin drugs. In addition, we propose a protocol to help with the management of this important clinical problem.

Effect of newer antihyperglycemic drugs on liver steatosis indices in patients with diabetes and obesity.

AIM: To assess the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy on liver steatosis measured by fatty liver index (FLI) and hepatic steatosis index (HSI) at 26 weeks in outpatients with diabetes and obesity. METHODS: Observational, prospective, multicenter study. Patients with steatosis determined by FLI (values <30 rule out and >60 indicate steatosis) and HIS (values <30 rule out and >36 indicate steatosis) who received combination therapy were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the sequential order of treatment. We used robust statistical methods. RESULTS: In our final report we included 174 patients (58.6% males), mean age 61.9 (10) years. Baseline body mass index, waist circumference and weight were 36.5 (6.8) kg/m2, 117.5 (15.1) cm and 99.4 (20.5) kg, respectively. One hundred percent of patients had altered biomarkers of fatty liver scores (FLI 96 [13] and HSI 49.2 [8.5]). At 26 weeks, significant reductions in FLI (-4.5 [95% CI 3.5-5.9] p < .001) and HSI (-2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.2] p < .001) were found in the total sample and pre-specified treatment and FLI cut-off point subgroups. CONCLUSION: Our results show a beneficial effect of the combination of GLP-1RAs plus SGLT2is on liver steatosis that goes beyond glucose control, and it is related mainly to weight loss, a decline in biomarkers and reductions in abdominal circumference. For many patients, early detection is essential to improving outcomes in NAFLD and could allow us to select the most efficient treatment options.

Cardiometabolic Therapy and Mortality in Very Old Patients With Diabetes Hospitalized due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The effects of cardiometabolic drugs on the prognosis of diabetic patients with COVID-19, especially very old patients, are not well known. This work was aimed to analyze the association between preadmission cardiometabolic therapy (antidiabetic, antiaggregant, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering drugs) and in-hospital mortality among patients ≥80 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) hospitalized for COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, observational study in patients ≥80 years with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and May 29, 2020. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between preadmission cardiometabolic therapy and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2 763 patients ≥80 years old hospitalized due to COVID-19, 790 (28.6%) had T2DM. Of these patients, 385 (48.7%) died during admission. On the multivariate analysis, the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.502, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.309-0.815, p = .005) and angiotensin receptor blockers (AOR 0.454, 95% CI: 0.274-0.759, p = .003) were independent protectors against in-hospital mortality, whereas the use of acetylsalicylic acid was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.761, 95% CI: 1.092-2.842, p = .020). Other antidiabetic drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins showed neutral association with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found important differences between cardiometabolic drugs and in-hospital mortality in older patients with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19. Preadmission treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could reduce in-hospital mortality; other antidiabetic drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins seem to have a neutral effect; and acetylsalicylic acid could be associated with excess mortality.

Prior Treatment with Statins is Associated with Improved Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19: Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of statins on COVID-19 outcomes is important given the high prevalence of their use among individuals at risk for severe COVID-19. Our aim is to assess whether patients receiving chronic statin treatment who are hospitalized with COVID-19 have reduced in-hospital mortality if statin therapy is maintained during hospitalization. METHODS: This work is a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study that analyzed 2921 patients who required hospital admission at 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics and COVID-19 disease outcomes between patients receiving chronic statin therapy who maintained this therapy during hospitalization versus those who did not. Propensity score matching was used to match each statin user whose therapy was maintained during hospitalization to a statin user whose therapy was withdrawn during hospitalization. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, continuation of statin therapy was associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 0.54-0.83, p < 0.001); lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.76,0.6-0.97, p = 0.025), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (OR 0.78, 0.69- 0.89, p < 0.001), and sepsis (4.82% vs 9.85%, p = 0.008); and less need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (5.35% vs 8.57, p < 0.001) compared to patients whose statin therapy was withdrawn during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients previously treated with statins who are hospitalized for COVID-19 and maintain statin therapy during hospitalization have a lower mortality rate than those in whom therapy is withdrawn. In addition, statin therapy was associated with a decreased probability that patients with COVID-19 will develop AKI, ARDS, or sepsis and decreases the need for IMV.

Gender-Based Differences by Age Range in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Spanish Observational Cohort Study.

There is some evidence that male gender could have a negative impact on the prognosis and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between hospitalized men and women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study is based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We analyzed the differences between men and women for a wide variety of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables, and the sex distribution of the reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as intensive care unit (ICU) admission by age subgroups. This work analyzed 12,063 patients (56.8% men). The women in our study were older than the men, on average (67.9 vs. 65.7 years; p < 001). Bilateral condensation was more frequent among men than women (31.8% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.007). The men needed non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation more frequently (5.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001, and 7.9% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). The most prevalent complication was acute respiratory distress syndrome, with severe cases in 19.9% of men (p < 0.001). In men, intensive care unit admission was more frequent (10% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (23.1% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.001). Regarding mortality, the differences by gender were statistically significant in the age groups from 55 years to 89 years of age. A multivariate analysis showed that female sex was significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of mortality in our study. Male sex appears to be related to worse progress in COVID-19 patients and is an independent prognostic factor for mortality. In order to fully understand its prognostic impact, other factors associated with sex must be considered.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

Admission hyperglycaemia as a predictor of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of diabetes status: data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia has emerged as an important risk factor for death in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between blood glucose (BG) levels and in-hospital mortality in non-critically patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-centre study involving patients hospitalized in Spain. Patients were categorized into three groups according to admission BG levels: <140 mg/dL, 140-180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 11,312 patients, only 2128 (18.9%) had diabetes and 2289 (20.4%) died during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% (<140 mg/dL), 33.7% (140-180 mg) and 41.1% (>180 mg/dL), p<.001. The cumulative probability of mortality was significantly higher in patients with hyperglycaemia compared to patients with normoglycaemia (log rank, p<.001), independently of pre-existing diabetes. Hyperglycaemia (after adjusting for age, diabetes, hypertension and other confounding factors) was an independent risk factor of mortality (BG >180 mg/dL: HR 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.73) (BG 140-180 mg/dL; HR 1.48; 95%CI: 1.29-1.70). Hyperglycaemia was also associated with requirement for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Admission hyperglycaemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in non-critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients regardless of prior history of diabetes. KEY MESSAGE Admission hyperglycaemia is a stronger and independent risk factor for mortality in COVID-19. Screening for hyperglycaemia, in patients without diabetes, and early treatment of hyperglycaemia should be mandatory in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Admission hyperglycaemia should not be overlooked in all patients regardless prior history of diabetes.

Association of Hypertension with All-Cause Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

It is unclear to which extent the higher mortality associated with hypertension in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is due to its increased prevalence among older patients or to specific mechanisms. Cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study, analyzing 12226 patients who required hospital admission in 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics of survivors versus non-survivors. The mean age of the study population was 67.5 ± 16.1 years, 42.6% were women. Overall, 2630 (21.5%) subjects died. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (50.9%) followed by diabetes (19.1%), and atrial fibrillation (11.2%). Multivariate analysis showed that after adjusting for gender (males, OR: 1.5, p = 0.0001), age tertiles (second and third tertiles, OR: 2.0 and 4.7, p = 0.0001), and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (second and third tertiles, OR: 4.7 and 8.1, p = 0.0001), hypertension was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality when this comorbidity was treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR: 1.6, p = 0.002) or other than renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers (OR: 1.3, p = 0.001) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR: 1.2, p = 0.035). The preexisting condition of hypertension had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization. ARBs showed a lower risk of lethality in hypertensive patients than other antihypertensive drugs.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: results of the phase IV COBALTA trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in insufficiently controlled people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: COBALTA (for its acronym in Spanish, COntrol Basal durante la hospitalizacion y al ALTA) was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV trial including 112 evaluable inpatients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8%-10%) with basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic drugs. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus-correction insulin regimen with Gla-300 during the hospitalization and with Gla-300 and/or non-insulin antidiabetics for 6 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was the HbA1c change from baseline to month 6 postdischarge. RESULTS: HbA1c levels decreased from 8.8%±0.6% at baseline to 7.2%±1.1% at month 6 postdischarge (p<0.001, mean change 1.6%±1.1%). All 7-point blood glucose levels decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p≤0.001, mean changes from 25.1±66.6 to 63.0±85.4 mg/dL). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p<0.001), month 3 (p<0.001) and month 6 (p<0.001) postdischarge (mean changes 51.5±90.9, 68.2±96.0 and 77.6±86.4 mg/dL, respectively). Satisfaction was high and hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia perception was low according to the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire at month 6 postdischarge. The incidence of confirmed (glucose<70 mg/dL)/severe hypoglycemia was 25.0% during hospitalization and 59.1% 6 months after discharge. No safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient and intensification therapy at discharge with Gla-300 improved significantly glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with other basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic medication, with high treatment satisfaction. Gla-300 could therefore be a treatment choice for hospital and postdischarge diabetes management.

Derivation and validation model for hospital hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: An objective and simple prognostic model for hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia could be helpful in guiding initial intensity of treatment. METHODS: We carried out a derivation rule for hypoglycemia using data from a nationwide retrospective cohort study of patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia carried out in 2014 (n=839 patients). The rule for hypoglycemia was validated using a second data set from a nationwide retrospective cohort study carried out in 2016 (n=561 patients). We derived our prediction rule using logistic regression with hypoglycemia (glucose less than 70mg/dL) as the primary outcome. RESULTS: The incidence of hypoglycemia in the derivation cohort was 10.3%. Patient's characteristics independently associated with hypoglycemia included episodes of hypoglycemia during the previous three months (odds ratio [OR]: 6.29, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 3.37-11.79, p<0.001) estimated glomerular filtration rate lower than 30mL/min/1.73m2 (OR: 2.32, 95%CI: 1.23-4.35, p=0.009), daily insulin dose greater than 0.3units per Kg (OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.06-2.85, p=0.028), and days of hospitalization (OR: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01-1.04, p=0.001). The model showed an area under the curve (AUC): 0.72 (95%CI: 0.66-0.78, p<0.001). The AUC in the validation cohort was: 0.71 (95%CI: 0.63-0.79, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The rule showed fair accuracy to predict hypoglycemia. Implementation of the rule into computer systems could be used in guiding initial insulin therapy.

Review of the prognostic value of galectin-3 in heart failure focusing on clinical utility of repeated testing.

Galectin-3 is a soluble ß-galactoside-binding lectin released by activated cardiac macrophages. Elevated levels of galectin-3 have been found to be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure. A number of recent studies suggest that galectin-3 may provide relevant information regarding the pathophysiologic process of heart failure. We analyzed the most recent and comprehensive studies which are focused on the association between galectin-3 and heart failure. Galectin-3 has also been associated with acute and chronic heart failure. Although most of the studies involved patients with heart failure and systolic dysfunction, galectin-3 seems to have more accurate role in heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. However, the mechanism of this relationship and its clinical implications remain uncertain. Some studies have not been able to prove the association between galectin-3 and heart failure, so there are many questions to answer. Galectin-3 has also been involved to renal dysfunction, so it could be a mediator of worsening renal function. Serial measurement of galectin-3 could provide further prognostic information in heart failure patients.

[Complementary treatment of acute heart failure in patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or anemia]. / Tratamiento complementario de la insuficiencia cardíaca aguda en el paciente con diabetes, enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica o anemia.

Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anemia are comorbidities with a high prevalence and impact in heart failure (HF). The presence of these comorbidities considerably worsens the prognosis of HF. Diabetic patients have a higher likelihood of developing symptoms of HF and both the treatment of diabetes and that of acute HF are altered by the coexistence of both entities. The glycemic targets in patients with acute HF are not well-defined, but could show a U-shaped relationship. Stress hyperglycemia in non-diabetic patients with HF could also have a deleterious effect on the medium-term prognosis. The inter-relationship between COPD and HF hampers diagnosis due to the overlap between the symptoms and signs of both entities and complementary investigations. The treatment of acute HF is also altered by the presence of COPD. Anemia is highly prevalent and is often the direct cause of decompensated HF, the most common cause being iron deficiency anemia. Iron replacement therapy, specifically intravenous forms, has helped to improve the prognosis of acute HF.