The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. METHODS: We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. RESULTS: In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave" in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods: We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. Results: In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20–41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1–15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200–16,400) or 20.1% (19.2–20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the “first wave” in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections

Clinical profile and prognosis in patients on oral anticoagulation before admission for COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases. Some of these patients are under oral anticoagulation (OAC) at admission, but to date, there are no data on the clinical profile, prognosis and risk factors of such patients during hospitalization for COVID-19. Subanalysis of the international 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients with prior OAC at hospital admission for COVID-19 were suitable for the study. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. From 1002 patients included, 110 (60.9% male, median age of 81.5 [IQR 75-87] years, median Short-Form Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] of 1 [IQR 1-3]) were on OAC at admission, mainly for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. After propensity score matching, 67.9% of these patients died during hospitalization, which translated into a significantly higher mortality risk compared to patients without prior OAC (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.16). After multivariate Cox regression analysis, respiratory insufficiency during hospitalization (HR 6.02, 95% CI 2.18-16.62), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) during hospitalization (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.34-3.91) and the Short-Form CCI (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49) were the main risk factors for mortality in patients on prior OAC. Compared to patients without prior OAC, COVID-19 patients on OAC therapy at hospital admission showed lower survival and higher mortality risk. In these patients on OAC therapy, the prevalence of several comorbidities is high. Respiratory insufficiency and SIRS during hospitalization, as well as higher comorbidity, pointed out those anticoagulated patients with increased mortality risk

Does there exist an obesity paradox in COVID-19? Insights of the international HOPE-COVID-19-registry.

Obesity has been described as a protective factor in cardiovascular and other diseases being expressed as 'obesity paradox'. However, the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes including mortality in COVID-19 has been poorly systematically investigated until now. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients divided into three groups according to the body mass index (BMI). We retrospectively collected data up to May 31st, 2020. 3635 patients were divided into three groups of BMI (30 kg/m2; n = 1061). Demographic, in-hospital complications, and predictors for mortality, respiratory insufficiency, and sepsis were analyzed. The rate of respiratory insufficiency was more recorded in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI 30 kg/m2 than BMI 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI 30 kg/m2 did not impact the mortality rate (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.889-1.508; p = 0.27) (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.893-1.479; p = 0.27). In multivariate logistic regression analyses for respiratory insufficiency and sepsis, BMI HOPE COVID-19-Registry revealed no evidence of obesity paradox in patients with COVID-19. However, Obesity was associated with a higher rate of respiratory insufficiency and sepsis but was not determined as an independent predictor for a high mortality

Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF). We conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated. 1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p NIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis. NCT04334291/EUPAS34399

Impact of renal function on admission in COVID-19 patients: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID 19) Registry.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite its international aggressive extension, with a significant morbidity and mortality, the impact of renal function on its prognosis is uncertain. Analysis from the international HOPE-Registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to evaluate the association between kidney failure severity on admission with the mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were categorized in 3 groups according to the estimated glomerular filtration rate on admission (eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR  60 mL/min/1.73 m2, eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR  758 patients were included: mean age was 66 ± 18 years, and 58.6% of patient were male. Only 8.5% of patients had a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, 30% of patients had kidney dysfunction upon admission (eGFR  60 vs eGFR 30-60 vs and eGFR  Renal failure on admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is frequent and is associated with a greater number of complications and in-hospital mortality. Our data comes from a multicenter registry and therefore does not allow to have a precise mortality risk assessment. More studies are needed to confirm these findings

Predictors of poor prognosis in healthy, young, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p  Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Prevalence and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Covid-19 and Prior Lung Diseases

Introduction: Patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases in the setting of COVID-19 may have a greater risk of severe complications and even death.Methods: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study with 5847 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals. Patients were separated in two groups, with/without previous lung disease. Evaluation of factors associated with survival and secondary composite end-point such as ICU admission and respiratory support, were explored.Results: 1,271 patients (22%) had a previous lung disease, mostly COPD. All-cause mortality occurred in 376 patients with lung disease (29.5%) and in 819 patients without (17.9%) (

Post-COVID-19 syndrome and diabetes mellitus: a propensity-matched analysis of the International HOPE-II COVID-19 Registry

BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most frequent comorbidities in patients suffering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a higher rate of severe course of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, data about post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) in patients with DM are limited.MethodsThis multicenter, propensity score-matched study compared long-term follow-up data about cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other symptoms in 8,719 patients with DM to those without DM. The 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age and sex resulted in 1,548 matched pairs.ResultsDiabetics and nondiabetics had a mean age of 72.6 ± 12.7 years old. At follow-up, cardiovascular symptoms such as dyspnea and increased resting heart rate occurred less in patients with DM (13.2% vs. 16.4%; p = 0.01) than those without DM (2.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.05), respectively. The incidence of newly diagnosed arterial hypertension was slightly lower in DM patients as compared to non-DM patients (0.5% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.18). Abnormal spirometry was observed more in patients with DM than those without DM (18.8% vs. 13; p = 0.24). Paranoia was diagnosed more frequently in patients with DM than in non-DM patients at follow-up time (4% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.009). The incidence of newly diagnosed renal insufficiency was higher in patients suffering from DM as compared to patients without DM (4.8% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.09). The rate of readmission was comparable in patients with and without DM (19.7% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.61). The reinfection rate with COVID-19 was comparable in both groups (2.9% in diabetics vs. 2.3% in nondiabetics; p = 0.55). Long-term mortality was higher in DM patients than in non-DM patients (33.9% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.005).ConclusionsThe mortality rate was higher in patients with DM type II as compared to those without DM. Readmission and reinfection rates with COVID-19 were comparable in both groups. The incidence of cardiovascular symptoms was higher in patients without DM

Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) Registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications