Autoimmune Diseases and COVID-19 as Risk Factors for Poor Outcomes: Data on 13,940 Hospitalized Patients from the Spanish Nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

(1) Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics and clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and autoimmune diseases (ADs) compared to the general population. (2) Methods: We used information available in the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, which retrospectively compiles data from the first admission of adult patients with COVID-19. We selected all patients with ADs included in the registry and compared them to the remaining patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during admission, readmission, and subsequent admissions, and secondary outcomes were a composite outcome including the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), or death, as well as in-hospital complications. (3) Results: A total of 13,940 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were included, of which 362 (2.6%) had an AD. Patients with ADs were older, more likely to be female, and had greater comorbidity. On the multivariate logistic regression analysis, which involved the inverse propensity score weighting method, AD as a whole was not associated with an increased risk of any of the outcome variables. Habitual treatment with corticosteroids (CSs), age, Barthel Index score, and comorbidity were associated with poor outcomes. Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were associated with a decrease in mortality in patients with AD. (4) Conclusions: The analysis of the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry shows that ADs do not lead to a different prognosis, measured by mortality, complications, or the composite outcome. Considered individually, it seems that some diseases entail a different prognosis than that of the general population. Immunosuppressive/immunoregulatory treatments (IST) prior to admission had variable effects

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Aim To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). Methods Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. Results As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). Conclusions Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality

Sobreinfección por Pneumocystis jirovecii y Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina tras infección por SARS-CoV2.

We present a case of an 87-year-old nonsmoker female who recovered after infection by SARS-CoV2 and was readmitted two weeks later due to respiratory sepsis. Radiological imaging showed a significant radiological worsening with extensive areas of bronchopneumonia and ground-glass opacities suggestive of organizing pneumonia. Empirical treatment with meropenem 1g/8h was started; however, clinical worsening persisted with tachypnea and desaturation requiring heated high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, with poor response. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated both in nare screening and sputum, and 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction in induced sputum was positive for P. jirovecii. Serum (1-3)-beta-D-glucan was normal, and blood cultures were sterile. Antibiotic therapy was adjusted with intravenous linezolid 600mg/12h and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 1600/320mg/6h, plus methylprednisolone 40mg/day. Unfortunately, the patient had no response to optimized treatment and finally died. Opportunistic and resistant microorganisms superinfections should be aware by clinicians in SARS-CoV2 infection, even more, when corticosteroids are widely used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used