C-Reactive Protein and Serum Albumin Ratio: A Feasible Prognostic Marker in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin are inflammatory markers. We analyzed the prognostic capacity of serum albumin (SA) and CRP for an outcome comprising mortality, length of stay, ICU admission, and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the Spanish national SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Two multivariate logistic models were adjusted for SA, CRP, and their combination. Training and testing samples were used to validate the models. (3) Results: The outcome was present in 41.1% of the 3471 participants, who had lower SA (mean [SD], 3.5 [0.6] g/dL vs. 3.8 [0.5] g/dL; p < 0.001) and higher CRP (108.9 [96.5] mg/L vs. 70.6 [70.3] mg/L; p < 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate model, both were associated with poorer evolution: SA, OR 0.674 (95% CI, 0.551-0.826; p < 0.001); CRP, OR 1.002 (95% CI, 1.001-1.004; p = 0.003). The CRP/SA model had a similar predictive capacity (honest AUC, 0.8135 [0.7865-0.8405]), with a continuously increasing risk and cutoff value of 25 showing the highest predictive capacity (OR, 1.470; 95% CI, 1.188-1.819; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: SA and CRP are good independent predictors of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. For the CRP/SA ratio value, 25 is the cutoff for poor clinical course

Atrial fibrillation as a new prognosis factor in chronic patients after hospitalization: the CHRONIBERIA index

A collaborative project in different areas of Spain and Portugal was designed to find out the variables that influence the mortality after discharge and develop a prognostic model adapted to the current healthcare needs of chronic patients in an internal medicine ward. Inclusion criteria were being admitted to an Internal Medicine department and at least one chronic disease. Patients’ physical dependence was measured through Barthel index (BI). Pfeiffer test (PT) was used to establish cognitive status. We conducted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models to analyze the influence of those variables on one-year mortality. We also developed an external validation once decided the variables included in the index. We enrolled 1406 patients. Mean age was 79.5 (SD = 11.5) and females were 56.5%. After the follow-up period, 514 patients (36.6%) died. Five variables were identified as significantly associated with 1 year mortality: age, being male, lower BI punctuation, neoplasia and atrial fibrillation. A model with such variables was created to estimate one-year mortality risk, leading to the CHRONIBERIA. A ROC curve was made to determine the reliability of this index when applied to the global sample. An AUC of 0.72 (0.7–0.75) was obtained. The external validation of the index was successful and showed an AUC of 0.73 (0.67–0.79). Atrial fibrillation along with an advanced age, being male, low BI score, or an active neoplasia in chronic patients could be critical to identify high risk multiple chronic conditions patients. Together, these variables constitute the new CHRONIBERIA index

Inappropriate antibiotic use in the COVID-19 era: Factors associated with inappropriate prescribing and secondary complications. Analysis of the registry SEMI-COVID

Background: Most patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite the fact that bacterial co-infections are rare. This can lead to increased complications, including antibacterial resistance. We aim to analyze risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in these patients and describe possible complications arising from their use. Methods: The SEMI-COVID-19 Registry is a multicenter, retrospective patient cohort. Patients with antibiotic were divided into two groups according to appropriate or inappropriate prescription, depending on whether the patient fulfill any criteria for its use. Comparison was made by means of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Possible complications of antibiotic use were also identified. Results: Out of 13,932 patients, 3047 (21.6%) were prescribed no antibiotics, 6116 (43.9%) were appropriately prescribed antibiotics, and 4769 (34.2%) were inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. The following were independent factors of inappropriate prescription: February-March 2020 admission (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.18-2.00), age (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99), absence of comorbidity (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.05-1.94), dry cough (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.94-3.26), fever (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.13-1.56), dyspnea (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.69), flu-like symptoms (OR 2.70, 95%CI 1.75-4.17), and elevated C-reactive protein levels (OR 1.01 for each mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients who received ANTIBIOTIC (4.9% vs 2.7%, p < .001). Conclusion: The inappropriate use of antibiotics was very frequent in COVID-19 patients and entailed an increased risk of adverse reactions. It is crucial to define criteria for their use in these patients. Knowledge of the factors associated with inappropriate prescribing can be helpful

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

Unified protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders in people with post COVID-19 condition: study protocol for a multiple baseline n-of-1 trial

Background: Post COVID-19 syndrome, defined as the persistence of COVID-19 symptoms beyond 3 months, is associated with a high emotional burden. Post COVID-19 patients frequently present comorbid anxiety, depressive and related disorders (emotional disorders, EDs) which have an important impact on their quality of life. Unfortunately, psychological interventions to manage these EDs are rarely provided to post COVID-19 patients. Also importantly, most psychological interventions do not address comorbidity, namely simultaneous EDs present in COVID-19 patients. This study will explore the clinical utility and acceptability of a protocol-based cognitive-behavioral therapy called the Unified Protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of EDs in patients suffering post COVID-19 condition. Methods: A multiple baseline n-of-1 trial will be used, as it allows participants to be their own comparison control. Sample will be composed of 60 patients diagnosed with post COVID-19 conditions and comorbid EDs from three Spanish hospitals. After meeting the eligibility criteria, participants will answer the pre-assessment protocol and then they will be randomly assigned to three different baseline conditions (6, 8, or 10 days of assessments before the intervention). Participants and professionals will be unblinded to participants’ allocation. Once the baseline assessment has been completed, participants will receive the online psychological individual intervention through video-calls. The Unified Protocol intervention will comprise 8 sessions of a 1 h duration each. After the intervention, participants will answer the post-assessment protocol. Additional follow-up assessments will be conducted at one, three, six, and twelve months after the intervention. Primary outcomes will be anxiety and depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, emotion dysregulation, distress tolerance, and satisfaction with the programme. Data analyses will include between-group and within-group differences and visual analysis of patients’ progress. Discussion: Results from this study will be disseminated in scientific journals. These findings may help to provide valuable information in the implementation of psychological interventions for patients suffering post COVID-19 conditions

Table_1_Guiding future research on psychological interventions in people with COVID-19 and post COVID syndrome and comorbid emotional disorders based on a systematic review.docx

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has been emotionally challenging for the entire population and especially for people who contracted the illness. This systematic review summarizes psychological interventions implemented in COVID-19 and long COVID-19 patients who presented comorbid emotional disorders.Methods and measures3,839 articles were identified in 6 databases and 43 of them were included in this work. Two independent researchers selected the articles and assessed their quality.Results2,359 adults were included in this review. Severity of COVID-19 symptoms ranged from asymptomatic to hospitalized patients; only 3 studies included long COVID-19 populations. Similar number of randomized controlled studies (n = 15) and case studies (n = 14) were found. Emotional disorders were anxiety and/or depressive symptoms (n = 39) and the psychological intervention most represented had a cognitive behavioral approach (n = 10). Length of psychological programs ranged from 1–5 sessions (n = 6) to 16 appointments (n = 2). Some programs were distributed on a daily (n = 4) or weekly basis (n = 2), but other proposed several sessions a week (n = 4). Short (5–10 min, n = 4) and long sessions (60–90 min, n = 3) are proposed. Most interventions were supported by the use of technologies (n = 18). Important risk of bias was present in several studies.ConclusionPromising results in the reduction of depressive, anxiety and related disorders have been found. However, important limitations in current psychological interventions were detected (i.e., duration, format, length, and efficacy of interventions were not consistently established across investigations). The results derived from our work may help to understand clinical practices in the context of pandemics and could guide future efforts to manage emotional suffering in COVID-19 patients. A stepped model of care could help to determine the dosage, length and format of delivery for each patient.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022367227. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022367227</p