Age is the main determinant of COVID-19 related in-hospital mortality with minimal impact of pre-existing comorbidities, a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Age and comorbidities increase COVID-19 related in-hospital mortality risk, but the extent by which comorbidities mediate the impact of age remains unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study with data from 45 Dutch hospitals, 4806 proven COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Dutch hospitals (between February and July 2020) from the CAPACITY-COVID registry were included (age 69[58–77]years, 64% men). The primary outcome was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality or discharge with palliative care. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the associations between sex, age, and comorbidities with the primary outcome. The effect of comorbidities on the relation of age with the primary outcome was evaluated using mediation analysis. RESULTS: In-hospital COVID-19 related mortality occurred in 1108 (23%) patients, 836 (76%) were aged ≥70 years (70+). Both age 70+ and female sex were univariably associated with outcome (odds ratio [OR]4.68, 95%confidence interval [4.02–5.45], OR0.68[0.59–0.79], respectively;both p<  0.001). All comorbidities were univariably associated with outcome (p<0.001), and all but dyslipidemia remained significant after adjustment for age70+ and sex. The impact of comorbidities was attenuated after age-spline adjustment, only leaving female sex, diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) significantly associated (female OR0.65[0.55–0.75], DM OR1.47[1.26–1.72], CKD OR1.61[1.32–1.97], COPD OR1.30[1.07–1.59]). Pre-existing comorbidities in older patients negligibly (<6% in all comorbidities) mediated the association between higher age and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Age is the main determinant of COVID-19 related in-hospital mortality, with negligible mediation effect of pre-existing comorbidities

The role of insulin therapy and glucose normalisation in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and diabetes mellitus, as well as patients admitted with elevated blood glucose without known diabetes, have impaired outcome. Therefore intensive glucose-lowering therapy with insulin (IGL) has been proposed in diabetic or hyperglycaemic patients and has been shown to improve survival and reduce incidence of adverse events. The current manuscript provides an overview of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of IGL. Furthermore, systematic glucose–insulin–potassium infusion (GIK) has been studied to improve outcome after AMI. In spite of positive findings in some early studies, GIK did not show any beneficial effects in recent clinical trials and thus this concept has been abandoned. While IGL targeted to achieve normoglycaemia improves outcome in patients with AMI, achievement of glucose regulation is difficult and carries the risk of hypoglycaemia. More research is needed to determine the optimal glucose target levels in AMI and to investigate whether computerised glucose protocols and continuous glucose sensors can improve safety and efficacy of IGL

Sex differences in cardiovascular complications and mortality in hospital patients with covid-19: registry based observational study

Objective To assess whether the risk of cardiovascular complications of covid-19 differ between the sexes and to determine whether any sex differences in risk are reduced in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Design Registry based observational study. Setting 74 hospitals across 13 countries (eight European) participating in CAPACITY-COVID (Cardiac complicAtions in Patients With SARS Corona vIrus 2 regisTrY), from March 2020 to May 2021 Participants All adults (aged ≥18 years), predominantly European, admitted to hospital with highly suspected covid-19 disease or covid-19 disease confirmed by positive laboratory test results (n=11 167 patients). Main outcome measures Any cardiovascular complication during admission to hospital. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and individual cardiovascular complications with ≥20 events for each sex. Logistic regression was used to examine sex differences in the risk of cardiovascular outcomes, overall and grouped by pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Results Of 11 167 adults (median age 68 years, 40% female participants) included, 3423 (36% of whom were female participants) had pre-existing cardiovascular disease. In both sexes, the most common cardiovascular complications were supraventricular tachycardias (4% of female participants, 6% of male participants), pulmonary embolism (3% and 5%), and heart failure (decompensated or de novo) (2% in both sexes). After adjusting for age, ethnic group, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, female individuals were less likely than male individuals to have a cardiovascular complication (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.80) or die (0.65, 0.59 to 0.72). Differences between the sexes were not modified by pre-existing cardiovascular disease; for the primary outcome, the female-to-male ratio of the odds ratio in those without, compared with those with, pre-existing cardiovascular disease was 0.84 (0.67 to 1.07). Conclusions In patients admitted to hospital for covid-19, female participants were less likely than male participants to have a cardiovascular complication. The differences between the sexes could not be attributed to the lower prevalence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in female individuals. The reasons for this advantage in female individuals requires further research

Genetics and not shared environment explains familial resemblance in adult metabolomics data

Metabolites are small molecules involved in cellular metabolism where they act as reaction substrates or products. The term 'metabolomics' refers to the comprehensive study of these molecules. The concentrations of metabolites in biological tissues are under genetic control, but this is limited by environmental factors such as diet. In adult mono- and dizygotic twin pairs, we estimated the contribution of genetic and shared environmental influences on metabolite levels by structural equation modeling and tested whether the familial resemblance for metabolite levels is mainly explained by genetic or by environmental factors that are shared by family members. Metabolites were measured across three platforms: two based on proton nuclear magnetic resonance techniques and one employing mass spectrometry. These three platforms comprised 237 single metabolic traits of several chemical classes. For the three platforms, metabolites were assessed in 1407, 1037 and 1116 twin pairs, respectively. We carried out power calculations to establish what percentage of shared environmental variance could be detected given these sample sizes. Our study did not find evidence for a systematic contribution of shared environment, defined as the influence of growing up together in the same household, on metabolites assessed in adulthood. Significant heritability was observed for nearly all 237 metabolites; significant contribution of the shared environment was limited to 6 metabolites. The top quartile of the heritability distribution was populated by 5 of the 11 investigated chemical classes. In this quartile, metabolites of the class lipoprotein were significantly overrepresented, whereas metabolites of classes glycerophospholipids and glycerolipids were significantly underrepresented.Analytical BioScience

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity