Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Research Articles

A Retrospective Study of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients using the CIRC (COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator) Score to Predict Mortality and Severe Disease Progression

A Retrospective Study of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients using the CIRC (COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator) Score to Predict Mortality and Severe Disease Progression

Effect of degalactosylated bovine glycoprotein formulations MAF and M сapsules on lymphopenia and clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a randomized clinical trial

BackgroundTargeting mucosal immunity of the gut, which is known to provide antigen processing, while avoiding excessive or unnecessary inflammation, was tested as a way to modulate COVID-19 severity.MethodsRandomized open-label trial in 204 adults hospitalized with non-critical COVID-19 who received for 14 days in addition to standard of care (SOC) degalactosylated bovine glycoproteins formulations of either MAF capsules (MAF group) or M capsules (M group) or SOC only (control group).ResultsMedian recovery time when patients did not require supplemental oxygen was 6 days in both study groups compared to 9 days in the control (MAF vs. control; P = 0.020 and M vs. control; P = 0.004). A greater reduction in mortality was seen in the MAF group compared to the control by day 14 (8.3% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.121) and by day 29 (15.3% vs. 3.2%; P = 0.020), and similarly in the M group by day 14 (8.3% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.276) and by day 29 (15.3% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.017). The proportion of those who had baseline absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) lower than 0.8 × 109/L was 13/63 (20.6%), 17/69 (24.6%), and 18/72 (25.0%) of patients in MAF, M, and control group respectively. Day 29 mortality among these lymphopenic patients was three times higher than for the intent-to-treat population (21% vs. 7%) and consisted in above subgroups: 2/13 (15%), 2/17 (12%), and 6/18 (33%) of patients. The decreased mortality in both study subgroups correlated with greater ALC restoration above 0.8 × 109/L level seen on day 14 in 91% (11/12) and 87.5% (14/16) of survivors in MAF and M subgroups respectively compared to 53.3% (8/15) of survivors in control subgroup. Incidences of any ALC decrease below the baseline level on day 14 occurred in 25.4% of patients in the MAF group and 29.0% of patients in the M group compared to 45.8% in control and ALC depletion by ≥ 50% from the baseline level consisted of 7.9%, 5.8%, and 15.3% of cases in these groups respectively.ConclusionThis study showed that both study agents prevented ALC depletion and accelerated its restoration, which is believed to be one of the mechanisms of improved crucial clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Trial registrationThe trial was registered after the trial start in ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04762628, registered 21/02/2021, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04762628.

SARS-CoV-2 and Dysphagia: A Retrospective Analysis of COVID-19 Patients with Swallowing Disorders.

COVID-19 can lead to impairment of neural networks involved in swallowing, since the act of swallowing is coordinated and performed by a diffuse brain network involving peripheral nerves and muscles. Dysphagia has been identified as a risk and predictive factor for the severest form of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To investigate the association between swallowing disorders and COVID-19 in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We collected demographic data, medical information specific to dysphagia and data on medical treatments of patients with COVID-19. A total of 43 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty (46%) were evaluated positive for dysphagia and 23 (54%) were evaluated negative. Neurocognitive disorders and diabetes were mostly associated with patients who resulted positive for dysphagia. Respiratory impairment caused by COVID-19 seems to be a cause of dysphagia, since all patients who needed oxygen-therapy developed symptoms of dysphagia, unlike patients who did not. In the dysphagic group, alteration of the swallowing trigger resulted in the severest form of dysphagia. An association was found between the severest form of COVID-19 and dysphagia. This group consisted predominantly of males with longer hospitalization. Identification of COVID-19 patients at risk for dysphagia is crucial for better patient management.

Elevated Cardiac Troponin I as a Mortality Predictor in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients.

Background and Objectives: SARS-CoV-2 affects multiple organ systems, including the cardiovascular system, leading to immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications. Acute myocardial injury is one of the earliest and most common cardiac issues in the acute phase of COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) levels in predicting in-hospital mortality among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study included 2019 adult patients hospitalised with a confirmed COVID-19 infection stratified by cTnI levels on admission into three groups: <19 ng/L (1416 patients), 19-100 ng/L (431 patients), and >100 ng/L (172 patients). Myocardial injury was defined as blood serum cTnI levels increased above the 99th percentile upper reference limit. Depersonalised datasets were extracted from digital health records. Statistical analysis included multivariable binary logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions. Results: Overall, 29.87% of patients experienced acute myocardial injury, which development was associated with age, male sex, chronic heart failure, arterial hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. Among patients with cTnI levels of 19-100 ng/L, the odds ratio for requiring invasive mechanical ventilation was 3.18 (95% CI 2.11-4.79) and, for those with cTnI > 100 ng/L, 5.38 (95% CI 3.26-8.88). The hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality for patients with cTnI levels of 19-100 ng/L was 2.58 (95% CI 1.83-3.62) and, for those with cTnI > 100 ng/L, 2.97 (95% CI 2.01-4.39) compared to patients with normal cTnI levels. Conclusions: Increased cardiac troponin I, indicating myocardial injury, on admission is associated with a more adverse clinical disease course, including a higher likelihood of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and increased risk of in-hospital mortality. This indicates cardiac troponin I to be a beneficial biomarker for clinicians trying to identify high-risk COVID-19 patients, choosing the optimal monitoring and treatment strategy for these patients.

Paramedic Mental Workload in Pandemic Covid-19 Era

The number of Covid-19 patients hospitalized continues to increase in line with the increase in Covid-19 cases in Indonesia. The increasing number of Covid-19 patients in hospitals is increasing the workload of paramedics. High workloads will cause saturation and fatigue. In addition, an increase in the number of Covid-19 patients increases anxiety and depression will be infected when treating patients. Paramedics should also use personal protective equipment during shift guards which causes dehydration and discomfort. This situation can degrade the quality of service to patients. The study aims to measure the mental workload of paramedics by NASA-TLX (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) method and find out the factors that affect mental workload levels. This research is a quantitative research with a cross sectional approach. The research was conducted at Hospital X type C in Malang Regency in October 2020. The samples used were all 100 Hospital X paramedics. Research instruments in the form of questionnaires shared through Google Form. Data analysis is done with descriptive analysis and Chi-Square analysis with p value &lt;0.05. The results found paramedics had a low mental workload of 1%, a moderate mental load of 3%, a high mental workload of 47%, and a very high mental workload of 49%. The Chi-Square test results found that age factors had an effect on the mental workload level of paramedics.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) in Moderate-to-Severe Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized, Open-Label Parallel-Group Study.

Since February 2020, the world has been overwhelmed by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, and several patients suffered interstitial pneumonia and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, threatening the capability of healthcare systems to handle this amount of critical cases. Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) possess potential immunomodulatory properties beneficial for COVID-19 patients, yet evidence supporting IVIG as adjunctive therapy remains sparse. This study evaluated the outcomes of adjunctive IVIG with the standard of care (SoC) in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients. This randomized study included 59 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients with known comorbidities. One arm (n = 33) received high-dose IVIG (400 mg/kg/day) within 48 hours for five days alongside SoC, while the other arm (n = 26) received SoC, comprising steroids, enoxaparin, and remdesivir. The primary endpoint was clinical improvement, as measured by the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and discharged/death proportions. Secondary outcomes included IVIG safety, hospitalization duration, changes in oxygen saturation, inflammatory markers, IgG titer, CTSS (CT severity score), and radiological findings. There was an improvement in the NEWS2 at the end of treatment in the IVIG arm (5.67 vs. 5.96). A significant absolute effect improvement (Day 1 vs. Day 9) was seen in serum LDH, D-dimer, hs-CRP, IL-6, CTSS, procalcitonin, respiratory rate, and chest radiographic findings. SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer increased significantly in the IVIG arm. There was a statistically significant reduction in mortality in the IVIG group (5 vs. 10). IVIG was a safe and effective adjunctive therapy to SoC treatment in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients needing ventilatory support. Furthermore, studies are required to validate our findings. This trial is registered with CTRI/2021/05/033622.

Mechanistic Understanding of Dexamethasone-Mediated Protection against Remdesivir-Induced Hepatotoxicity.

Remdesivir (RDV), a broad-spectrum antiviral agent, is often used together with dexamethasone (DEX) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring respiratory support. Potential hepatic adverse drug reaction is a safety concern associated with the use of RDV. We previously reported that DEX cotreatment effectively mitigates RDV-induced hepatotoxicity and reduces elevated serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels in cultured human primary hepatocytes (HPH) and hospitalized COVID-19 patients, respectively. Yet, the precise mechanism behind this protective drug-drug interaction remains largely unknown. Here, we show that through the activation of p38, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) signaling, RDV induces apoptosis (cleavage of caspases 8, 9, and 3), autophagy (increased autophagosome and LC3-II), and mitochondrial damages (decreased membrane potential, respiration, ATP levels, and increased expression of Bax and the released cytosolic cytochrome C) in HPH. Importantly, cotreatment with DEX partially reversed RDV-induced apoptosis, autophagy, and cell death. Mechanistically, DEX deactivates/dephosphorylates p38, JNK, and ERK1/2 signaling by enhancing the expression of dual specificity protein phosphatase 1 (DUSP1), a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) phosphatase, in a glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-dependent manner. Knockdown of GR in HPH attenuates DEX-mediated DUSP1 induction, MAPK dephosphorylation, as well as protection against RDV-induced hepatotoxicity. Collectively, our findings suggest a molecular mechanism by which DEX modulates the GR-DUSP1-MAPK regulatory axis to alleviate the adverse actions of RDV in the liver. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The research uncovers the molecular mechanisms by which dexamethasone safeguards against remdesivir-associated liver damage in the context of COVID-19 treatment.

Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Who Received Baricitinib or Tocilizumab in Addition to Standard of Care.

COVID-19 infection is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAR-CoV-2). This novel virus has transformed into different resistant variants (e.g., omicron; delta; alpha; epsilon) since its first emergence in 2019. The National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines currently recommend adding either baricitinib or tocilizumab to the standard of care for severe COVID-19 treatment. An outcome comparison between baricitinib and tocilizumab is needed to determine which agent is more appropriate and safer in clinical practice when deciding treatment. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical outcomes between tocilizumab and baricitinib in the management of severe COVID-19 infection. A total of 5638 adult patients from 16 acute care hospitals in a large healthcare system in Texas were included in this multicentered retrospective cohort study. The median age of the patients was 56 years and 46.67% of them were female. Severe COVID-19 patients were treated with standard of care and either tocilizumab or baricitinib. The primary outcome of hospital admission mortality rates was found to be higher with tocilizumab (odd ratio (OR) of 1.56; p = 0.001; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.008) compared to that with baricitinib (OR 0.65; p = 0.001; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84). For one of the secondary outcomes, patients who received tocilizumab were 3.75 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU than those receiving baricitinib (p = 0.001; 95% CI 2.89 to 4.85). Among the 1199 COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the ICU, the ICU length of stay was shorter among patients receiving baricitinib with a mean difference of 4.42 days and a median difference of 2.54 days, compared to those receiving tocilizumab (p < 0.0001; 95% CI -5.97 to -2.62) as another secondary outcome. Our large retrospective observational study showed that baricitinib reduced mortality; the likelihood of ICU admission; and the ICU length of stay compared to tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Identifying Mortality Predictors in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Insights from a Single-Center Retrospective Study at a University Hospital.

The pandemic instigated by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to over 7 million deaths globally, primarily attributable to viral pneumonia. Identifying fundamental markers associated with an elevated risk of mortality can aid in the early identification of patients prone to disease progression to a severe state, enabling prompt intervention. This was a single-center, retrospective study. In this study, we examined 299 patients admitted to the Department of Infectology and Travel Medicine in Košice, Slovakia, with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were monitored from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021, with the endpoint being discharge from the hospital or death. All patient-related data were retrospectively collected from medical records. This study identified several risk factors significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality, including the requirement of HFNO (p < 0.001), age over 60 years (p < 0.001), Ne/Ly values of >6 (p < 0.001), as well as certain lymphocyte subtypes-CD4+ < 0.2 × 109/L (p = 0.035), CD8+ < 0.2 × 109/L (p < 0.001), and CD19+ < 0.1 × 109/L (p < 0.001)-alongside selected biochemical inflammatory markers-IL-6 > 50 ng/L (p < 0.001) and lactate > 3 mmol/L (p < 0.001). We confirmed that the mentioned risk factors were significantly associated with the death of patients from viral pneumonia in the hospital.

Bleeding and thrombotic events and intensity of heparin therapy in the two first waves of COVID-19.

A systemic inflammatory response occurs during SARS-CoV2 infection and is associated with hypercoagulability and thrombotic events. From March 2020 in our hospital different dosages of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) were introduced according to the level of patient care intensity. Because bleeding episodes occurred in hospitalized COVID-19 patients on heparin, the dosage of LMWH at the end of first wave was tailored on the severity of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to describe bleeding and thrombotic events in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV2 infection on LMWH therapy in the two waves of COVID-19 and analyze the factors associated with these events. Among 1143 patients enrolled in the COVID-19 Network registry, 912 were included in the analysis, 537 of them admitted during the first wave and 375 during the second. Bleeding events were 30 (3.3%): 22 (2.4%) major and 8 (0.9%) non-major. Arterial and venous thrombotic events were 6 (0.7%) and 24 (2.6%). The incidence of venous thrombotic events was higher in the first than in the second wave (0.29% [95% CI 0.20-0.45] events/day vs. 0.05% [95% CI 0.02-0.16]), with a 71% risk reduction (95% CI 22%-94%). The incidence of bleeding was 0.33% (95% CI 0.22-0.50) vs 0.14% events/day (95% CI 0.07-0.28), with no statistical between-wave difference (HR 0.41 95% CI 0.16-1.08). After adjusting for the competing risks of death and comorbidities, patients in the second wave had lower odds to have thrombotic events than in the first wave (0.24 HR [95% C.I. 0.07-0.89]). In this retrospective study on COVID-19 we found a low rate of hemorrhagic and thrombotic events, that may be explained by the absence in the case material of patients admitted to intensive care unit.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Cardioprotective effects of vaccination in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 vaccination has been shown to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19 disease. The aim of this study was to explore the cardioprotective effect of COVID-19 vaccination in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we included hospitalized COVID-19 patients with confirmed vaccination status from July 2021 to February 2022. We assessed outcomes such as acute cardiac events and cardiac biomarker levels through clinical and laboratory data. Our analysis covered 167 patients (69% male, mean age 58 years, 42% being fully vaccinated). After adjustment for confounders, vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients displayed a reduced relative risk for acute cardiac events (RR: 0.33, 95% CI [0.07; 0.75]) and showed diminished troponin T levels (Cohen’s d: − 0.52, 95% CI [− 1.01; − 0.14]), compared to their non-vaccinated peers. Type 2 diabetes (OR: 2.99, 95% CI [1.22; 7.35]) and existing cardiac diseases (OR: 4.31, 95% CI [1.83; 10.74]) were identified as significant risk factors for the emergence of acute cardiac events. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may confer both direct and indirect cardioprotective effects in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Maximal Breath Hold Associated with Inappropriate Change in Respiratory Rate in Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients Indicates a Blunted Ventilatory Response

Maximal Breath Hold Associated with Inappropriate Change in Respiratory Rate in Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients Indicates a Blunted Ventilatory Response

Isolation, characterization, and pathogenicity assay of Acanthamoeba and its endosymbionts in respiratory disorders and COVID-19 hospitalized patients, northern Iran

Acanthamoeba spp., are common free-living amoebae found in nature that can serve as reservoirs for certain microorganisms. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a newly emerged respiratory infection, and the investigation of parasitic infections remains an area of limited research. Given that Acanthamoeba can act as a host for various endosymbiotic microbial pathogens and its pathogenicity assay is not fully understood, this study aimed to identify Acanthamoeba and its bacterial and fungal endosymbionts in patients with chronic respiratory disorders and hospitalized COVID-19 patients in northern Iran. Additionally, a pathogenicity assay was conducted on Acanthamoeba isolates. Urine, nasopharyngeal swab, and respiratory specimens were collected from two groups, and each sample was cultured on 1.5% non-nutrient agar medium. The cultures were then incubated at room temperature and monitored daily for a period of two weeks. Eight Acanthamoeba isolates were identified, and PCR was performed to confirm the presence of amoebae and identify their endosymbionts. Four isolates were found to have bacterial endosymbionts, including Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Achromobacter sp., while two isolates harbored fungal endosymbionts, including an uncultured fungus and Gloeotinia sp. In the pathogenicity assay, five isolates exhibited a higher degree of pathogenicity compared to the other three. This study provides significant insights into the comorbidity of acanthamoebiasis and COVID-19 on a global scale, and presents the first evidence of Gloeotinia sp. as a fungal endosymbiont. Nevertheless, further research is required to fully comprehend the symbiotic patterns and establish effective treatment protocols.

Diabetes-associated factors in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on mean in-hospital glycemic values

Aim of the study: to evaluate the significance of mean glycemic values during hospitalization as a potentially important diabetes-associated risk factor of unfavorable outcomes in inpatients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Materials and methods. 139 patients with COVID-19 were observed in the hospital, 42 of them had concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). In patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, the relationship between mean glycemic values during hospitalization and adverse outcomes (death and/or transfer of the patient to the intensive care unit (ICU)) was assessed. The average number of tests to assess glycemia in the hospital was 38.4 ± 15.68 per patient.Results and discussion. According to correlation analysis data, an increase in mean in-hospital glycemia correlated with the severity of lung damage by computed tomography (R = 0.54, p = 0.002), the need for respiratory support by SMRT-CO score (R = 0.29, p = 0.070) and hypercoagulation by the international normalized ratio (R= –0.42, p=0.008). According to regression analysis, predictors of unfavorable outcomes included mean in-hospital glycemia (OR 1.4 [0.93; 2.12], p=0.073) and the percentage of tests with hypoglycemia in the hospital (OR 2.09 [0.89; 5 .40], p=0.016) as well as a history of diabetes (OR 5.5 [0.95, 31.60], p=0.029).Conclusion. Impaired glycemic control during the whole hospitalization period negatively affects disease severity and the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

Association between echocardiographic features, troponin levels, and survival time in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular events

IntroductionThis study aims to explore the predictive roles of echocardiographic parameters and biomarkers in determining outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients experiencing cardiovascular events. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 49 COVID-19 patients who encountered cardiovascular events during hospitalization and underwent echocardiography. Our findings revealed notable associations between echocardiographic parameters and survival time. ResultsA decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 10% was linked to a 20% reduction in survival time (TR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.96, p = 0.017). Similarly, an increase in left ventricular (LV) volume by 10 mL was associated with a 9% decrease in survival time (TR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84 – 0.98, p = 0.011). Moreover, an increase in left atrial (LA) volume by 10 mL corresponded to an 8% decrease in survival time (TR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86 – 0.99, p = 0.026). Additionally, each 1 cm increase in right ventricular (RV) diameter was linked to a 22% reduction in survival time (TR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.61 – 0.99, p = 0.043). Furthermore, a 10 mL increase in right atrial (RA) volume was associated with a 12% decrease in survival time (TR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78 – 0.98, p = 0.017). Notably, a tenfold rise in troponin levels was linked to a 33% decrease in survival time (TR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48 – 0.93, p = 0.014). ConclusionsOur study emphasizes the significant associations between various echocardiographic parameters and troponin levels with reduced survival time among COVID-19 patients experiencing cardiovascular events. These findings highlight the potential utility of echocardiography and troponin assessment in predicting outcomes and guiding management strategies in this patient population.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin for preventing coagulopathy following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have shown a significant occurrence of thromboembolism and a heightened risk of death. It remains unclear whether factor Xa inhibitors are superior to enoxaparin in this context. Hence, there is a need for a direct comparison to assess the preventive effects and safety of factor Xa inhibitors versus enoxaparin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness or safety of factor Xa inhibitors and enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Embolic incidence, incidence of bleeding, and all-cause mortality were among the outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 percent CIs. The analysis included six RCTs and two retrospective studies containing 4048 patients. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction among patients on factor Xa inhibitors compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the embolic incidence [risk ratio (RR) 0.64 (95%, CI 0.42, 0.98); P=0.04, I2=12%]. Upon subgroup analysis by type of study design, no significant reductions were noted in patients on factor Xa inhibitors in RCTs (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.33-1.17; P=0.14) or observational studies (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.23-1.26; P=0.15) when compared with enoxaparin Factor Xa inhibitors were not significantly associated with incidence of bleeding [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.36, 1.61); P=0.47, I2=0%] or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.36; P=0.43). Consistent results were obtained upon subgroup analysis by the type of study design. Factor Xa inhibitors are more effective than enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 who are not acutely ill and are hospitalized. Additional rigorous RCTs comparing factor Xa inhibitors with enoxaparin are warranted.

Environmental pollutant risk factors for worse COVID-19 related clinical outcomes in predominately hispanic and latino populations

BackgroundPer- and poly-fluorinated compounds (PFAS) and heavy metals constitute two classes of environmental exposures with known immunotoxicant effects. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of exposure to heavy metals and PFAS on COVID-19 severity. We hypothesized that elevated plasma-PFAS concentrations and urinary heavy metal concentrations would be associated with increased odds of ICU admission in COVID-19 hospitalized individuals. MethodsUsing the University of Southern California Clinical Translational Sciences Institute (SC-CTSI) biorepository of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, urinary concentrations of 15 heavy metals and urinary creatinine were measured in n = 101 patients and plasma concentrations of 13 PFAS were measured in n = 126 patients. COVID-19 severity was determined based on whether a patient was admitted to the ICU during hospitalization. Associations of metals and PFAS with ICU admission were assessed using logistic regression models, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and for metals, urinary dilution. ResultsThe average age of patients was 55 ± 14.2 years. Among SC-CTSI participants with urinary measurement of heavy metals and blood measures of PFAS, 54.5% (n = 61) and 54.8% (n = 80) were admitted to the ICU, respectively. For heavy metals, we observed higher levels of Cd, Cr, and Cu in ICU patients. The strongest associations were with Cadmium (Cd). After accounting for covariates, each 1 SD increase in Cd resulted in a 2.00 (95% CI: 1.10–3.60; p = 0.03) times higher odds of admission to the ICU. When including only Hispanic or Latino participants, the effect estimates between cadmium and ICU admission remained similar. Results for PFAS were less consistent, with perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) exhibiting a positive but non-significant association with ICU admission (Odds ratio, 95% CI: 1.50, 0.97–2.20) and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) exhibiting a negative association with ICU admission (0.53, 0.31–0.88). ConclusionsThis study supports the hypothesis that environmental exposures may impact COVID-19 severity.

Comparing the Efficacy of Remdesivir, Favipiravir, and Casirivimab and Imdevimab on Duration of Hospitalization and ICU Stay of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Comparing the Efficacy of Remdesivir, Favipiravir, and Casirivimab and Imdevimab on Duration of Hospitalization and ICU Stay of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

COVID-19 patient profiles over four waves in Barcelona metropolitan area: A clustering approach.

Identifying profiles of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and explore their association with different degrees of severity of COVID-19 outcomes (i.e. in-hospital mortality, ICU assistance, and invasive mechanical ventilation). The findings of this study could inform the development of multiple care intervention strategies to improve patient outcomes. Prospective multicentre cohort study during four different waves of COVID-19 from March 1st, 2020 to August 31st, 2021 in four health consortiums within the southern Barcelona metropolitan region. From a starting point of over 292 demographic characteristics, comorbidities, vital signs, severity scores, and clinical analytics at hospital admission, we used both clinical judgment and supervised statistical methods to reduce to the 36 most informative completed covariates according to the disease outcomes for each wave. Patients were then grouped using an unsupervised semiparametric method (KAMILA). Results were interpreted by clinical and statistician team consensus to identify clinically-meaningful patient profiles. The analysis included nw1 = 1657, nw2 = 697, nw3 = 677, and nw4 = 787 hospitalized-COVID-19 patients for each of the four waves. Clustering analysis identified 2 patient profiles for waves 1 and 3, while 3 profiles were determined for waves 2 and 4. Patients allocated in those groups showed a different percentage of disease outcomes (e.g., wave 1: 15.9% (Cluster 1) vs. 31.8% (Cluster 2) for in-hospital mortality rate). The main factors to determine groups were the patient's age and number of obese patients, number of comorbidities, oxygen support requirement, and various severity scores. The last wave is also influenced by the massive incorporation of COVID-19 vaccines. Our study suggests that a single care model at hospital admission may not meet the needs of hospitalized-COVID-19 adults. A clustering approach appears to be appropriate for helping physicians to differentiate patients and, thus, apply multiple care intervention strategies, as another way of responding to new outbreaks of this or future diseases.