Ethnicity and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain: Results from the Multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Background: This work aims to analyze clinical outcomes according to ethnic groups in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain. (2) Methods: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study analyzed hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to ethnicity (Latin Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, North Africans, Europeans). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality (IHM), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Associations between ethnic groups and clinical outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index values and wave were evaluated using logistic regression. (3) Results: Of 23,953 patients (median age 69.5 years, 42.9% women), 7.0% were Latin American, 1.2% were North African, 0.5% were Asian, 0.5% were Sub-Saharan African, and 89.7% were European. Ethnic minority patients were significantly younger than European patients (median (IQR) age 49.1 (40.5-58.9) to 57.1 (44.1-67.1) vs. 71.5 (59.5-81.4) years, p < 0.001). The unadjusted IHM was higher in European (21.6%) versus North African (11.4%), Asian (10.9%), Latin American (7.1%), and Sub-Saharan African (3.2%) patients. After further adjustment, the IHM was lower in Sub-Saharan African (OR 0.28 (0.10-0.79), p = 0.017) versus European patients, while ICU admission rates were higher in Latin American and North African versus European patients (OR (95%CI) 1.37 (1.17-1.60), p < 0.001) and (OR (95%CI) 1.74 (1.26-2.41), p < 0.001). Moreover, Latin American patients were 39% more likely than European patients to use IMV (OR (95%CI) 1.43 (1.21-1.71), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The adjusted IHM was similar in all groups except for Sub-Saharan Africans, who had lower IHM. Latin American patients were admitted to the ICU and required IMV more often

The Use of Corticosteroids or Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Based on Inflammatory Markers

SEMI-COVID-19 Network.[Background] The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer it remains undefined.[Objective] We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation. .[Design] A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and d-dimer values.[Patients] A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ).[Main Measures] The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.[Key Results] A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%, p=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high–risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%, p=0.049).[Conclusions] The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.Peer reviewe

Prognostic Value of D-dimer to Lymphocyte Ratio (DLR) in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients: A Validation Study in a National Cohort

Background: This study aimed to validate the role of the D-dimer to lymphocyte ratio (DLR) for mortality prediction in a large national cohort of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study that included hospitalized patients due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain was conducted from March 2020 to March 2022. All biomarkers and laboratory indices analyzed were measured once at admission. Results: A total of 10,575 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. The mean age of participants was 66.9 (+/- 16) years, and 58.6% (6202 patients) of them were male. The overall mortality rate was 16.3% (n = 1726 patients). Intensive care unit admission was needed in 10.5% (n = 1106 patients), non-invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 8.8% (n = 923 patients), and orotracheal intubation was required in 7.5% (789 patients). DLR presented a c-statistic of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68-0.71) for in-hospital mortality with an optimal cut-off above 1. Multivariate analysis showed an independent association for in-hospital mortality for DLR > 1 (adjusted OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.09-4.04; p = 0.03); in the same way, survival analysis showed a higher mortality risk for DLR > 1 (HR 2.24; 95% CI 2.03-2.47; p < 0.01). Further, no other laboratory indices showed an independent association for mortality in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: This study confirmed the usefulness of DLR as a prognostic biomarker for mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, being an accessible, cost-effective, and easy-to-use biomarker in daily clinical practice

Use of glucocorticoids megadoses in SARS-CoV-2 infection in a spanish registry: SEMI-COVID-19

Objective To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. Methods Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. Results Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59-79] vs 73 years [IQR 61-83]; p < .001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91-2.24 p < .001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.80; p < .001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p.298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p < .001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p < .001) respectively. Conclusion There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Withdrawal Is Associated with Higher Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Our main aim was to describe the effect on the severity of ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker) during COVID-19 hospitalization. A retrospective, observational, multicenter study evaluating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with ACEI/ARB. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite outcome of prognosis (IMV (invasive mechanical ventilation), NIMV (non-invasive mechanical ventilation), ICU admission (intensive care unit), and/or all-cause mortality). We evaluated both outcomes in patients whose treatment with ACEI/ARB was continued or withdrawn. Between February and June 2020, 11,205 patients were included, mean age 67 years (SD = 16.3) and 43.1% female; 2162 patients received ACEI/ARB treatment. ACEI/ARB treatment showed lower all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001). Hypertensive patients in the ACEI/ARB group had better results in IMV, ICU admission, and the composite outcome of prognosis (p < 0.0001 for all). No differences were found in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. Patients previously treated with ACEI/ARB continuing treatment during hospitalization had a lower incidence of the composite outcome of prognosis than those whose treatment was withdrawn (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.63-0.76). ARB was associated with better survival than ACEI (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62-0.96). ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with protection on mortality. The benefits were greater in hypertensive, those who continue

Evolution of the Use of Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients in Spain between March and November 2020: SEMI-COVID National Registry

Objectives: Since the results of the RECOVERY trial, WHO recommendations about the use of corticosteroids (CTs) in COVID-19 have changed. The aim of the study is to analyse the evolutive use of CTs in Spain during the pandemic to assess the potential influence of new recommendations. Material and methods: A retrospective, descriptive, and observational study was conducted on adults hospitalised due to COVID-19 in Spain who were included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry from March to November 2020. Results: CTs were used in 6053 (36.21%) of the included patients. The patients were older (mean (SD)) (69.6 (14.6) vs. 66.0 (16.8) years; p < 0.001), with hypertension (57.0% vs. 47.7%; p < 0.001), obesity (26.4% vs. 19.3%; p < 0.0001), and multimorbidity prevalence (20.6% vs. 16.1%; p < 0.001). These patients had higher values (mean (95% CI)) of C-reactive protein (CRP) (86 (32.7-160) vs. 49.3 (16-109) mg/dL; p < 0.001), ferritin (791 (393-1534) vs. 470 (236-996) mu g/dL; p < 0.001), D dimer (750 (430-1400) vs. 617 (345-1180) mu g/dL; p < 0.001), and lower Sp0(2)/Fi0(2) (266 (91.1) vs. 301 (101); p < 0.001). Since June 2020, there was an increment in the use of CTs (March vs. September; p < 0.001). Overall, 20% did not receive steroids, and 40% received less than 200 mg accumulated prednisone equivalent dose (APED). Severe patients are treated with higher doses. The mortality benefit was observed in patients with oxygen saturation </=90%. Conclusions: Patients with greater comorbidity, severity, and inflammatory markers were those treated with CTs. In severe patients, there is a trend towards the use of higher doses. The mortality benefit was observed in patients with oxygen saturation </=90%

Prognostic Value of the PROFUND Index for 30-Day Mortality in Acute Heart Failure

Background and Objectives: The prevalence and incidence of heart failure (HF) have been increasing in recent years as the population ages. These patients show a distinct profile of comorbidity, which makes their care more complex. In recent years, the PROFUND index, a specific tool for estimating the mortality rate at one year in pluripathology patients, has been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the PROFUND index and of in-hospital and 30-day mortality after discharge of patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF). Materials and Methods: A prospective multicenter longitudinal study was performed that included patients admitted with AHF and ≥2 comorbid conditions. Clinical, analytical, and prognostic variables were collected. The PROFUND index was collected in all patients and rates of in-hospital and 30-day mortality after discharge were analyzed. A bivariate analysis was performed with quantitative variables between patients who died and those who survived at the 30-day follow-up. A logistic regression analysis was performed with the variables that obtained statistical significance in the bivariate analysis between deceased and surviving subjects. Results: A total of 128 patients were included. Mean age was 80.5 +/− 9.98 years, and women represented 51.6%. The mean PROFUND index was 5.26 +/− 4.5. The mortality rate was 8.6% in-hospital and 20.3% at 30 days. Preserved left ventricular ejection fraction was found in 60.9%. In the sample studied, there were patients with a PROFUND score < 7 predominated (89 patients (70%) versus 39 patients (31%) with a PROFUND score ≥ 7). Thirteen patients (15%) with a PROFUND score < 7 died versus the 13 (33%) with a PROFUND score ≥ 7, p = 0.03. Twelve patients (15%) with a PROFUND score < 7 required readmission versus 12 patients (35%) with a PROFUND score ≥ 7, p = 0.02. The ROC curve of the PROFUND index for in-hospital mortality and 30-day follow-up in patients with AHF showed AUC 0.63, CI: 95% (0.508–0.764), p <0.033. Conclusions: The PROFUND index is a clinical tool that may be useful for predicting short-term mortality in elderly patients with AHF. Further studies with larger simple sizes are required to validate these results

Risk categories in COVID-19 based on degrees of inflammation: data on more than 17,000 patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry

Background: the inflammation or cytokine storm that accompanies COVID-19 marks the prognosis. This study aimed to identify three risk categories based on inflammatory parameters on admission. Methods: retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, collected and followed-up from 1 March to 31 July 2020, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The three categories of low, intermediate, and high risk were determined by taking into consideration the terciles of the total lymphocyte count and the values of C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, and D-dimer taken at the time of admission. Results: a total of 17,122 patients were included in the study. The high-risk group was older (57.9 vs. 64.2 vs. 70.4 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly male (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 60.1%; p < 0.001). They had a higher degree of dependence in daily tasks prior to admission (moderate-severe dependency in 10.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 17%; p < 0.001), arterial hypertension (36.9% vs. 45.2% vs. 52.8%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (28.4% vs. 37% vs. 40.6%; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (11.9% vs. 17.1% vs. 20.5%; p < 0.001), ischemic heart disease (3.7% vs. 6.5% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.001), heart failure (3.4% vs. 5.2% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.001), liver disease (1.1% vs. 3% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.002), chronic renal failure (2.3% vs. 3.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001), cancer (6.5% vs. 7.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.7% vs. 5.4% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001). They presented more frequently with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting. These patients more frequently required high flow nasal cannula (3.1% vs. 4.4% vs. 9.7%; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (0.9% vs. 3% vs. 6.3%; p < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (0.6% vs. 2.7% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.001), and ICU admission (0.9% vs. 3.6% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), and had a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 6.2% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). The three risk categories proved to be an independent risk factor in multivariate analyses. Conclusion: the present study identifies three risk categories for the requirement of high flow nasal cannula, mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality based on lymphopenia and inflammatory parameters

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