Validez y utilidad del RAE-CMBD en el estudio de los pacientes hospitalizados con gripe / Validity and usefulness of the RAE-CMBD studying patients hospitalised with influenza

Background: Understanding the hospital impact of influenza requires enriching epidemiological surveillance registries with other sources of information. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of the Hospital Care Activity Record – Minimum Basic Data Set (RAE-CMBD) in the analysis of the outcomes of patients hospitalised with this infection. Methods: Observational and retrospective study of adults admitted with influenza in a tertiary hospital during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons. We calculated the concordance of the RAE-CMBD with the influenza epidemiological surveillance registry (gold standard), as well as the main parameters of internal and external validity. Logistic regression models were used for risk adjustment of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Results: A total of 907 (97.74%) unique matches were achieved, with high inter-observer agreement (ƙ=0.828). The RAE-CMBD showed a 79.87% sensitivity, 99.72% specificity, 86.71% positive predictive value and 99.54% negative predictive value. The risk-adjusted mortality ratio of patients with influenza was lower than that of patients without influenza: 0.667 (0.53-0.82) vs. 1.008 (0.98-1.04) and the risk-adjusted length of stay ratio was higher: 1.15 (1.12-1.18) vs. 1.00 (0.996-1.001). Conclusion: The RAE-CMBD is a valid source of information for the study of the impact of influenza on hospital care. The lower risk-adjusted mortality of patients admitted with influenza compared to other inpatients seems to point to the effectiveness of the main clinical and organisational measures adopted. (AU)

Objetivos: Conocer el impacto hospitalario de la gripe requiere enriquecer los registros de vigilancia epidemiológicos con otras fuentes de información. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la validez del Registro de Actividad de Atención Especializada – Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos (RAE-CMBD) en el análisis de los resultados asistenciales de los pacientes hospitalizados con esta infección. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de los adultos ingresados con gripe en un hospital terciario durante las temporadas 2017/2018 y 2018/2019. Se calculó la concor-dancia del RAE-CMBD con el registro de vigilancia epidemiológica de gripe (estándar de referencia), así como los principales parámetros de validez interna y externa. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión logística para el ajuste por riesgo de la mortalidad intrahospitalaria y duración de la estancia. Resultados: Se lograron 907 (97,74%) emparejamientos únicos, con una concordancia interobservadores elevada (ƙ=0,828). El RAE-CMBD mostró una sensibilidad del 79,87%, especificidad del 99,72%, valor predictivo positivo del 86,71% y negativo del 99,54%. La razón de mortalidad ajustada por riesgo de los pacientes con gripe fue menor que la de los pacientes sin gripe: 0,667 (0,53–0,82) vs. 1,008 (0,98–1,04) y la razón de duración de la estancia ajustada por riesgo, mayor: 1,15 (1,12–1,18) vs. 1,00 (0,996–1,001). Conclusiones: El RAE-CMBD es una fuente de información válida para el estudio del impacto de la gripe en la atención hospitalaria. La menor mortalidad ajustada por riesgo de los pacientes ingresados con gripe respecto de los demás ingresados, parece apuntar a la efectividad de las principales medidas clínicas y organizativas adoptadas. (AU)

Date of Admission during COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Patient Outcomes in Addition to the Higher Efficacy of Tocilizumab Plus High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy Compared to Tocilizumab Alone.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400-600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm. RESULTS: An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies.