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.

Cardiac rehabilitation and outcome in stable outpatients with recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the mortality rate and the rate of subsequent ischemic events (myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, or limb amputation) in patients with recent MI according to the use of cardiac rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Ongoing registry of outpatients. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=1043) with recent acute MI were recruited; of these, 521 (50%) participated in cardiac rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subsequent ischemic events and mortality rates were registered. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, 50 patients (4.8%) died and 49 (4.7%) developed 52 subsequent ischemic events (MI: n=43, ischemic stroke: n=6, limb amputation: n=3). Both the mortality rate (.16 vs 5.57 deaths per 100 patient-years; rate ratio=.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0-0.1]) and the rate of subsequent ischemic events (1.65 vs 4.54 events per 100 patient-years; rate ratio=0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) were significantly lower in cardiac rehabilitation participants than in nonparticipants. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in cardiac rehabilitation had a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio=.08; 95% CI, .01-.63; P=.016) and a nonsignificant lower risk of subsequent ischemic events (hazard ratio=.65; 95% CI, .30-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: The use of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with recent MI was independently associated with a significant decrease in the mortality rate and a nonsignificant decrease in the rate of subsequent ischemic events.

Coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization outcomes in persons with and without HIV in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization outcomes between persons with and without HIV. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study in 150 hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Patients admitted from 1 March to 8 October 2020 with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 positive) PCR test in respiratory tract samples. The primary data source was the COVID-19 Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna's registry (SEMI-COVID-19). Demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and clinical severity as well as treatments received during admission, treatment duration, ICU admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death were recorded. Factors associated with mortality and the composite of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death, were analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 16 563 admissions were collected, 98 (0.59%) of which were of persons with HIV infection. These patients were younger, the percentage of male patients was higher, and their Charlson comorbidity index was also higher. Rates of mortality and composite outcome of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death were lower among patients with HIV infection. In the logistic regression analysis, HIV infection was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.96] for the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: HIV infection was associated with a lower probability of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death.

Clusters of inflammation in COVID-19: descriptive analysis and prognosis on more than 15,000 patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

Uncontrolled inflammation following COVID-19 infection is an important characteristic of the most seriously ill patients. The present study aims to describe the clusters of inflammation in COVID-19 and to analyze their prognostic role. This is a retrospective observational study including 15,691 patients with a high degree of inflammation. They were included in the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified 7 clusters. C1 is characterized by lymphopenia, C2 by elevated ferritin, and C3 by elevated LDH. C4 is characterized by lymphopenia plus elevated CRP and LDH and frequently also ferritin. C5 is defined by elevated CRP, and C6 by elevated ferritin and D-dimer, and frequently also elevated CRP and LDH. Finally, C7 is characterized by an elevated D-dimer. The clusters with the highest in-hospital mortality were C4, C6, and C7 (17.4% vs. 18% vs. 15.6% vs. 36.8% vs. 17.5% vs. 39.3% vs. 26.4%). Inflammation clusters were found as independent factors for in-hospital mortality. In detail and, having cluster C1 as reference, the model revealed a worse prognosis for all other clusters: C2 (OR = 1.30, p = 0.001), C3 (OR = 1.14, p = 0.178), C4 (OR = 2.28, p < 0.001), C5 (OR = 1.07, p = 0.479), C6 (OR = 2.29, p < 0.001), and C7 (OR = 1.28, p = 0.001). We identified 7 groups based on the presence of lymphopenia, elevated CRP, LDH, ferritin, and D-dimer at the time of hospital admission for COVID-19. Clusters C4 (lymphopenia + LDH + CRP), C6 (ferritin + D-dimer), and C7 (D-dimer) had the worst prognosis in terms of in-hospital mortality.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Outcomes in Stable Outpatients with Recent Symptomatic Artery Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study.

OBJECTIVES: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic artery disease remain controversial. We compared the rate of subsequent ischemic events or death according to mean SBP levels during follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. FRENA is an ongoing registry of stable outpatients with symptomatic coronary (CAD), cerebrovascular (CVD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). SETTING: 24 Spanish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 4789 stable outpatients with vascular disease. RESULTS: As of June 2017, 4789 patients had been enrolled in different Spanish centres. Of these, 1722 (36%) had CAD, 1383 (29%) CVD and 1684 (35%) PAD. Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, 136 patients suffered subsequent myocardial infarction, 125 had ischemic stroke, 74 underwent limb amputation, and 260 died. On multivariable analysis, CVD patients with mean SBP levels 130-140 mm Hg had a lower risk of mortality than those with levels <130 mm Hg (hazard ratio (HR): 0.39; 95% CI: 0.20-0.77), as did those with levels >140 mm Hg (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.26-0.84). PAD patients with mean SBP levels >140 mm Hg had a lower risk for subsequent ischemic events (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.39-0.83) and those with levels 130-140 mm Hg (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.29-0.78) or >140 mm Hg (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21-0.50) had a lower risk of mortality. We found no differences in patients with CAD. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of symptomatic arterial disease patients, most of whom are not eligible for clinical trials, the risk of subsequent events and death varies according to the levels of SBP and the location of previous events. Especially among patients with large artery atherosclerosis, PAD or CVD, SBP <130 mm Hg may result in increased mortality. Due to potential factors in this issue, Prospective, well designed studies are warranted to confirm these observational data.

Real-Life Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in COVID-19 Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

We aimed to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality, in a retrospective cohort study of the SEMICOVID19 database of admitted patients with SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed pneumonia from 131 Spanish hospitals. Patients treated with corticosteroids were compared to patients not treated with corticosteroids; and adjusted using a propensity-score for steroid treatment. From March-July 2020, 5.262 (35.26%) were treated with corticosteroids and 9.659 (64.73%) were not. In-hospital mortality overall was 20.50%; it was higher in patients treated with corticosteroids than in controls (28.5% versus 16.2%, OR 2.068 [95% confidence interval; 1.908 to 2.242]; p = 0.0001); however, when adjusting by occurrence of ARDS, mortality was significantly lower in the steroid group (43.4% versus 57.6%; OR 0.564 [95% confidence interval; 0.503 to 0.633]; p = 0.0001). Moreover, the greater the respiratory failure, the greater the impact on mortality of the steroid treatment. When adjusting these results including the propensity score as a covariate, in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower in the steroid group (OR 0.774 [0.660 to 0.907], p = 0.002). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 24% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0.24). These results support the use of glucocorticoids in COVID-19 in this subgroup of patients.