Including Ratio of Platelets to Liver Stiffness Improves Accuracy of Screening for Esophageal Varices That Require Treatment

International audienceBackground & aims: Based on platelets and liver stiffness measurements, the Baveno VI criteria (B6C), the expanded B6C (EB6C), and the ANTICIPATE score can be used to rule out varices needing treatment (VNT) in patients with compensated chronic liver disease. We aimed to improve these tests by including data on the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness.Methods: In a retrospective analysis of data from 10 study populations, collected from 2004 through 2018, we randomly assigned data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies to a derivation population (n = 1579; 15.1% with VNT, 50.2% with viral hepatitis, 28.9% with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, 20.8% with alcohol-associated liver disease, with model for end-stage liver disease scores of 9.5 ± 3.0, and 93.0% with liver stiffness measurements ≥10 kPa) or a validation population (n = 789). Test results were compared with results from a sequential algorithm (VariScreen). VariScreen incorporated data on platelets or liver stiffness measurements and then the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness measurement, adjusted for etiology, patient sex, and international normalized ratio.Results: In the derivation population, endoscopies were spared for 23.9% of patients using the B6C (VNT missed in 2.9%), 24.3% of patients using the ANTICIPATE score (VNT missed in 4.6%), 34.5% of patients using VariScreen (VNT missed in 2.9%), and 41.9% of patients using the EB6C (VNT missed in 10.9%). Differences in spared endoscopy rates were significant (P ≤ .001), except for B6C vs ANTICIPATE and in missed VNT only for EB6C vs the others (P ≤ .009). VariScreen was the only safe test regardless of sex or etiology (missed VNT ≤5%). Moreover, VariScreen secured screening without missed VNT in patients with model for end-stage liver disease scores higher than 10. This overall strategy performed better than a selective strategy restricted to patients with compensated liver disease. Test performance and safety did not differ significantly among populations.Conclusions: In a retrospective study of data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease, we found that the B6C are safe whereas the EB6C are unsafe, based on missed VNT. The VariScreen algorithm performed well in patients with chronic liver disease of any etiology or severity. It is the only test that safely rules out VNT and can be used in clinical practice

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity

Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria.Results A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)).Conclusion Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable