Worse Outcome Of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Research Articles

Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with obinutuzumab compared with patients with rituximab: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundPatients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies could have a higher risk of adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab has shown greater B-cell depletion and superior in vitro efficacy than rituximab. We aimed to assess whether obinutuzumab would result in worse COVID-19 outcomes than rituximab.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 124 patients with B-cell lymphoma, 106 of whom received rituximab treatment and 18 of whom received obinutuzumab treatment. The adverse outcomes of COVID-19 were compared between patients in the two cohorts.ResultsThe proportions of patients who were hospitalized (55.6% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.005), experienced prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (38.9% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001), and developed severe COVID-19 (33.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001) were higher in patients with obinutuzumab than in those with rituximab. Multivariate analyses showed that obinuzumab treatment was associated with higher incidences of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 27.05, 95% CI 3.75-195.22, p = 0.001) and severe COVID-19(OR 15.07, 95% CI 2.58–91.72, p = 0.003).ConclusionsOur study suggested that patients treated with obinutuzumab had a higher risk of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 than those treated with rituximab.

Characteristics of COVID-19 and Impact of Disease Activity in Patients with Adult-Onset Still's Disease.

This study aimed to characterize the morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality rates among patients with adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and explore the impact of COVID-19 on the disease activity of AOSD. Data on the clinical and demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related symptoms, and outcomes were retrospectively collected. Patients were stratified according to COVID-19 severity and associations between risk factors and outcomes were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. The disease activity of patients with AOSD flares after COVID-19 was described. A total of 188 patients with AOSD were followed up, of whom 75.5% (n = 142) had a confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19. Patients on medium or high-dose oral glucocorticoids or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors were at increased risk of developing moderate to severe COVID-19. Six patients suffered flares of AOSD following COVID-19 in a short period; however, the relapse rate was not statistically increased compared with patients without COVID-19. Patients with AOSD receiving medium or high-dose glucocorticoid therapy or JAK inhibitors had worse COVID-19 outcomes. Further work is needed to explore risk factors affecting COVID-19 outcomes and the impact of COVID-19 on disease activity in AOSD.

The impact of COVID-19 on a Southern Chinese cohort with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders

BackgroundThere are few studies on risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients with Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders (NMOSD). The relationship between NMOSD relapse and COVID-19 needs to be evaluated. The objective of our study is to identify the risk factors of COVID-19 infection and NMOSD relapse among NMOSD patients with COVID-19. MethodA total of 379 NMOSD patients registered in a NMOSD database were included in this case-control study after the end of the COVID-19 quarantine and restriction policies on December 6, 2022 in China. Data were obtained from the database. Additional information was obtained by questionnaires and the Neurology out-patient clinic. The clinical characteristics of NMOSD patients with COVID-19 were described. Risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection and outcome among patients with NMOSD were analyzed. Risk factors associated with relapse in NMOSD patients with COVID-19 were also identified. Results239 (63.1%) NMOSD patients were infected with COVID-19. Patients with NMOSD who were infected with COVID-19, in comparison to those without COVID-19, were younger at the time of interview (median [IQR] age: 43.00 [32.00–55.00] vs 49.50 [35.25–56.00] years, P = 0.029), younger at NMOSD onset (median [IQR] age: 38.00 [27.00–51.00] vs 45.00 [32.00–52.75] years, P = 0.013), had abnormal visual evoked potentials before infection (73.4% vs 54.3% P = 0.029), had lower baseline Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADL) scores (median [IQR] ADL: 14.00 [14.00–16.00] vs 14.00 [14.00–19.00], P = 0.014) or lower baseline modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores (1.12±0.749 vs 1.33±0.991, P = 0.037), and were less frequently treated with more than 10 mg prednisone or 8 mg methylprednisolone (25.0% vs 36.0%,p = 0.026). All 9 NMOSD patients who had symptomatic cerebral syndrome developed moderate/severe COVID-19. A higher percentage of patients with moderate/severe COVID-19 experienced more than one core clinical NMOSD symptoms (61.5% vs 55.1%, p = 0.044), compared to patients with mild COVID-19. Higher risk of NMOSD relapse among NMOSD patients with COVID-19 was associated with higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores (median[IQR] EDSS: 2.00 [1.00–3.00] vs 1.50 [1.00–2.25], P = 0.037) and drug treatments disruption (21.6% vs 5.0% P<0.001). ConclusionsNMOSD patients with younger age, lower baseline ADL or mRS had higher incidence of being diagnosed with COVID-19 during pandemic. Glucocorticoid use may decrease the risk of COVID-19. NMOSD patients with symptomatic cerebral syndrome before the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Drug treatment disruption may result in relapse among NMOSD patients with COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes and immunological features of COVID-19 patients receiving B-cell depletion therapy during the Omicron era

Background: The clinical outcomes and immunological features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients receiving B-cell depletion therapy (BCDT), especially in Omicron variant era, have not been fully elucidated. We aimed to investigate the outcomes and immune responses of COVID-19 patients receiving BCDT during the Omicron period. Methods: We retrospectively compared clinical outcomes between COVID-19 patients treated with BCDT (the BCDT group) and those with the same underlying diseases not treated with BCDT (the non-BCDT group). For immunological analyses, we prospectively enrolled COVID-19 patients receiving BCDT and immunocompetent COVID-19 patients as controls. We measured humoral and cellular immune responses using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and flow cytometry. Results: Severe to critical COVID-19 was more frequent in the BCDT group than in the non-BCDT group (41.9% vs. 28.3%, p = .030). BCDT was an independent risk factor for severe to critical COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–4.04, p = .010) as well as for COVID-19-related mortality (aOR 4.03, 95% CI 1.17–13.86, p = .027). Immunological analyses revealed that patients receiving BCDT had lower anti-S1 IgG titres and a tendency to higher proportions of activated CD4+ T-cells than the controls. Conclusions: BCDT was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron period. Humoral immune response impairment and T-cell hyperactivation were the main immunological features of COVID-19 patients treated with BCDT, which may have contributed to the worse outcomes of COVID-19 in this population.

Clinical characteristics, racial inequities, and outcomes in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study.

Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32-1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70-6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83-12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63-3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20-2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66-3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89-22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701.

5: PULSE METHYLPREDNISOLONE VERSUS DEXAMETHASONE IN COVID-19: A MULTICENTER COHORT STUDY

Introduction: Although high-dose corticosteroids can hypothetically curb the cytokine storm effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains inconclusive. We compared pulse methylprednisolone therapy with dexamethasone as a COVID-19 treatment. Methods: Using a Japanese multicenter database involving 350 acute care centers, we identified adults aged≥18 years admitted for COVID-19 and discharged between January 2020 and December 2021 who received pulse methylprednisolone (≥250 mg/day) or intravenous dexamethasone (≥6 mg/day) on the day of admission or the next day. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed with age, sex, comorbidities, disease severity, hospital size, and time of admission as covariates. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS), insulin-requiring hyperglycemia, and fungal infection. Results: We included 1,202 (mean age, 62.4±16.3; male, 70.9%) and 7,669 (mean age, 61.6±16.3; male, 66.0%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone and dexamethasone group, respectively. After propensity score matching (1,197 pairs), pulse methylprednisolone was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (12.0% vs 8.8%; p=0.011), longer LOS (13.0 [interquartile range: 9.0–22.0] vs 12.0 [8.0–18.0] days; p=0.002), and higher hyperglycemia incidence (16.3% vs 9.7%; p< 0.001), while fungal infection incidence (6.3% vs 4.6%; p=0.339) was not significantly different. In subgroup analysis, among patients who received mechanical ventilation (IMV) on the day of admission or the next day, in-hospital mortality was similar between the two groups (22.2% vs 20.5%; p=0.792). However, among patients without IMV, pulse methylprednisolone was associated with higher mortality (10.3% vs 7.0%; p=0.010). The sensitivity analysis involving patients who received ≥1 g/day of methylprednisolone vs 6 mg/day of dexamethasone showed consistent results. Conclusions: Compared to dexamethasone, pulse methylprednisolone may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, especially in patients not on IMV. Providers should be aware of the potential consequences according to the type and dose of corticosteroid therapy and tailor the treatment for COVID-19.

A translational genomics approach identifies IL10RB as the top candidate gene target for COVID-19 susceptibility

Recent efforts have identified genetic loci that are associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection rates and disease outcome severity. Translating these genetic findings into druggable genes that reduce COVID-19 host susceptibility is a critical next step. Using a translational genomics approach that integrates COVID-19 genetic susceptibility variants, multi-tissue genetically regulated gene expression (GReX), and perturbagen signatures, we identified IL10RB as the top candidate gene target for COVID-19 host susceptibility. In a series of validation steps, we show that predicted GReX upregulation of IL10RB and higher IL10RB expression in COVID-19 patient blood is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes and that in vitro IL10RB overexpression is associated with increased viral load and activation of disease-relevant molecular pathways.

Evaluation of the frequency and intensity of COVID-19 in patients with ankylosing spondylitis under anti-TNF therapy.

n/a.

Low IgG trough and lymphocyte subset counts are associated with hospitalization for COVID-19 in patients with primary antibody deficiency

Low IgG trough and lymphocyte subset counts are associated with hospitalization for COVID-19 in patients with primary antibody deficiency

Corticosteroid and Biologic Use Not Associated With Adverse Outcomes for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BackgroundTo date, studies investigating the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have consistently reported that the observed rate of COVID-19 within this population is similar to the general population. Limited research has suggested that corticosteroid use in the IBD population may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, but it is still yet to be determined if specific IBD-related clinical factors are associated with worse outcomes. Our goal was to describe clinical COVID-19 outcomes for IBD patients and to identify the clinical factors that may be associated with worse outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we utilized the inpatient database within the largest hospital network in the New York City Metropolitan area to identify all IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsOf 83 IBD/COVID-19 patients presenting to a hospital network emergency room, 56 were hospitalized. Overall, 19.6% of hospitalized IBD patients died, compared with 22.2% of all hospital system COVID-19 patients during the time period. There was no association between pre-admission corticosteroid use or biologic treatment with a severe course of COVID-19.ConclusionsIn contrast to some prior reports, we did not observe an association of pre-admission corticosteroid use and adverse outcomes. While the mortality rate was high for IBD/COVID-19 patients, it was not greater than that for hospitalized COVID-19 patients generally. Though our results are encouraging, we continue to support the recommendations of the leading gastrointestinal and IBD societies to regard our patients as “at risk”, and to observe caution in their care.

Risks of and From SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 in People With Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

This review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and presents a summary of the latest research evidence on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people with diabetes (PWD). To review the evidence regarding the extent to which PWD are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or of suffering its complications, including associated mortality. We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Embase, MEDLINE, and LitCOVID on 3 December 2020. Systematic reviews synthesizing data on PWD exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, reporting data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and/or to intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19, and death with COVID-19 were used. One reviewer appraised and extracted data; data were checked by a second. Data from 112 systematic reviews were narratively synthesized and displayed using effect direction plots. Reviews provided consistent evidence that diabetes is a risk factor for severe disease and death from COVID-19. Fewer data were available on ICU admission, but where available, these data also signaled increased risk. Within PWD, higher blood glucose levels both prior to and during COVID-19 illness were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Type 1 diabetes was associated with worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes. There were no appropriate data for discerning whether diabetes was a risk factor for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Due to the nature of the review questions, the majority of data contributing to included reviews come from retrospective observational studies. Reviews varied in the extent to which they assessed risk of bias. There are no data on whether diabetes predisposes to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data consistently show that diabetes increases risk of severe COVID-19. As both diabetes and worse COVID-19 outcomes are associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, their intersection warrants particular attention.

Associations of Disease-Modifying Therapies With COVID-19 Severity in Multiple Sclerosis.

Background and ObjectivesPeople with multiple sclerosis (MS) are a vulnerable group for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those taking immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). We examined the characteristics of COVID-19 severity in an international sample of people with MS.MethodsData from 12 data sources in 28 countries were aggregated (sources could include patients from 1–12 countries). Demographic (age, sex), clinical (MS phenotype, disability), and DMT (untreated, alemtuzumab, cladribine, dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, siponimod, other DMTs) covariates were queried, along with COVID-19 severity outcomes, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for artificial ventilation, and death. Characteristics of outcomes were assessed in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, MS phenotype, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score.ResultsSix hundred fifty-seven (28.1%) with suspected and 1,683 (61.9%) with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. Among suspected plus confirmed and confirmed-only COVID-19, 20.9% and 26.9% were hospitalized, 5.4% and 7.2% were admitted to ICU, 4.1% and 5.4% required artificial ventilation, and 3.2% and 3.9% died. Older age, progressive MS phenotype, and higher disability were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to dimethyl fumarate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.41; aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.48–4.02) and ICU admission (aOR 2.30, 95% CI 0.98–5.39; aOR 3.93, 95% CI 1.56–9.89), although only rituximab was associated with higher risk of artificial ventilation (aOR 4.00, 95% CI 1.54–10.39). Compared to pooled other DMTs, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.29–2.38; aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.87–4.07) and ICU admission (aOR 2.55, 95% CI 1.49–4.36; aOR 4.32, 95% CI 2.27–8.23), but only rituximab was associated with artificial ventilation (aOR 6.15, 95% CI 3.09–12.27). Compared to natalizumab, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13–3.07; aOR 2.88, 95% CI 1.68–4.92) and ICU admission (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 0.85–5.35; aOR 3.23, 95% CI 1.17–8.91), but only rituximab was associated with ventilation (aOR 5.52, 95% CI 1.71–17.84). Associations persisted on restriction to confirmed COVID-19 cases. No associations were observed between DMTs and death. Stratification by age, MS phenotype, and EDSS score found no indications that DMT associations with COVID-19 severity reflected differential DMT allocation by underlying COVID-19 severity.DiscussionUsing the largest cohort of people with MS and COVID-19 available, we demonstrated consistent associations of rituximab with increased risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for artificial ventilation and of ocrelizumab with hospitalization and ICU admission. Despite the cross-sectional design of the study, the internal and external consistency of these results with prior studies suggests that rituximab/ocrelizumab use may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19.

Multiple sclerosis is not associated with an increased risk for severe COVID-19: a nationwide retrospective cross-sectional study from Germany

BackgroundSince the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has risen, several risk factors have been identified, predicting a worse outcome. It has been speculated that patients with Multiple sclerosis (MS) have an increased risk for a severe course of COVID-19 due to a suspected higher vulnerability. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the impact of comorbid MS on the outcome of patients with COVID-19 in Germany.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using the administrative database of all hospitalized patients diagnosed with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (n = 157,524) in Germany during 2020. The cohort was stratified according to the presence (n = 551) or absence (n = 156,973) of comorbid MS, including discrimination of MS subtypes. Primary outcome measures were admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), use of invasive or non-invasive ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. Differences were investigated using rates and odds ratios as estimates. Pooled overall estimates, sex-stratified estimates, age-group stratified estimates, and MS subtype stratified estimates were calculated for all outcomes under the random-effects model.ResultsAmong 157,524 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 551 had a concurrent MS diagnosis (0.3%). Overall, univariate analysis showed lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% versus 22.7%, p < 0.001), lower use of ventilation (9.8% versus 14.5%, p < 0.001) and lower in-hospital mortality (11.1% versus 19.3%, p < 0.001) among COVID-19 patients with comorbid MS. This finding was stable across the subgroup analysis of sex and MS subtype but was attenuated by age-stratification, confirming equal odds of in-hospital mortality between COVID-19 patients with and without MS (log OR: 0.09 [95% CI: − 0.40, 0.59]).ConclusionsAlthough there might be differences in risk within the MS patients’ population, this large-scale nationwide analysis found no evidence for a worse outcome of COVID-19 in patients with comorbid MS compared to non-MS individuals.

Towards Goals to Refine Prophylactic and Therapeutic Strategies Against COVID-19 Linked to Aging and Metabolic Syndrome.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gave rise to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A strong correlation has been demonstrated between worse COVID-19 outcomes, aging, and metabolic syndrome (MetS), which is primarily derived from obesity-induced systemic chronic low-grade inflammation with numerous complications, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The majority of COVID-19 deaths occurs in people over the age of 65. Individuals with MetS are inclined to manifest adverse disease consequences and mortality from COVID-19. In this review, we examine the prevalence and molecular mechanisms underlying enhanced risk of COVID-19 in elderly people and individuals with MetS. Subsequently, we discuss current progresses in treating COVID-19, including the development of new COVID-19 vaccines and antivirals, towards goals to elaborate prophylactic and therapeutic treatment options in this vulnerable population.

Hypertension, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system-blocking agents, and COVID-19

BackgroundThere have been concerns regarding the safety of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS)-blocking agents including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study sought to evaluate the impact of hypertension and the use of ACEI/ARB on clinical severity in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA total of 3,788 patients aged 30 years or older who were confirmed with COVID-19 with real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were identified from a claims-based cohort in Korea. The primary study outcome was severe clinical events, a composite of intensive care unit admission, need for ventilator care, and death.ResultsPatients with hypertension (n = 1,190, 31.4 %) were older and had higher prevalence of comorbidities than those without hypertension. The risk of the primary study outcome was significantly higher in the hypertension group, even after multivariable adjustment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 2.69). Among 1,044 patients with hypertensive medical treatment, 782 (74.9 %) were on ACEI or ARB. The ACEI/ARB subgroup had a lower risk of severe clinical outcomes compared to the no ACEI/ARB group, but this did not remain significant after multivariable adjustment (aOR, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.41 to 1.15).ConclusionsPatients with hypertension had worse COVID-19 outcomes than those without hypertension, while the use of RAAS-blocking agents was not associated with increased risk of any adverse study outcomes. The use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs did not increase the risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, supporting current guidance to continue these medications when indicated.

Severe vitamin D deficiency is not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection but may increase mortality risk in hospitalized adults: a retrospective case-control study in an Arab Gulf country.

PurposeAs the world continues to cautiously navigate its way through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several breakthroughs in therapies and vaccines are currently being developed and scrutinized. Consequently, alternative therapies for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevention, such as vitamin D supplementation, while hypothetically promising, require substantial evidence from countries affected by COVID-19. The present retrospective case–control study aims to identify differences in vitamin D status and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients screened for SARS-CoV-2, and determine associations of vitamin D levels with increased COVID-19 risk and mortality.MethodsA total of 222 [SARS-CoV-2 (+) N = 150 (97 males; 53 females); SARS-CoV-2 (−) N = 72 (38 males, 34 females)] out of 550 hospitalized adult patients screened for SARS-CoV-2 and admitted at King Saud University Medical City-King Khalid University Hospital (KSUMC-KKUH) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from May–July 2020 were included. Clinical, radiologic and serologic data, including 25(OH)D levels were analyzed.ResultsVitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 50 nmol/l) was present in 75% of all patients. Serum 25(OH)D levels were significantly lower among SARS-CoV-2 (+) than SARS-CoV-2 (−) patients after adjusting for age, sex and body mass index (BMI) (35.8 ± 1.5 nmol/l vs. 42.5 ± 3.0 nmol/l; p = 0.037). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that significant predictors for SARS-CoV-2 include age > 60 years and pre-existing conditions (p < 0.05). Statistically significant predictors for mortality adjusted for covariates include male sex [Odds ratio, OR 3.3 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.2–9.2); p = 0.02], chronic kidney disease [OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.4–8.7); p = 0.008] and severe 25(OH)D deficiency (< 12.5 nmol/l), but at borderline significance [OR 4.9 (95% CI (0.9–25.8); p = 0.06].ConclusionIn hospital settings, 25(OH)D deficiency is not associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but may increase risk for mortality in severely deficient cases. Clinical trials are warranted to determine whether vitamin D status correction provides protective effects against worse COVID-19 outcomes.

COVID-19: What Do Rheumatologists Need to Know?

Purpose of ReviewSevere acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019, rapidly reaching global pandemic proportions. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented unique challenges to the rheumatology community. It is known that many individuals with rheumatic disease are at increased risk of severe disease from other infections, sparking a similar fear for COVID-19. In addition, medications routinely used in rheumatology practice are being trialled as treatments, with the potential for drug shortages for rheumatology patients.Recent FindingsUnderlying comorbidities and active disease are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease. Tocilizumab and hydroxychloroquine have not proven to be effective treatments in the management of COVID-19. Telehealth has become an essential tool for the rheumatology community to monitor patients during the pandemic.SummaryIn this article, we summarise the available COVID-19 evidence that is of relevance to the rheumatology community. We discuss the risk of contracting COVID-19 in individuals with rheumatic disease, along with presenting features and clinical outcomes. We provide an overview of the treatments for COVID-19 which have significance for rheumatology. We highlight published recommendations which can guide our management of rheumatic disease populations during this pandemic. Finally, we discuss the challenges in delivering effective care virtually and present methods and tools which could be adapted for use.

Association Between Blood Pressure Control and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes in 45 418 Symptomatic Patients With Hypertension

Hypertension has been identified as a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated adverse outcomes. This study examined the association between preinfection blood pressure (BP) control and COVID-19 outcomes using data from 460 general practices in England. Eligible patients were adults with hypertension who were tested or diagnosed with COVID-19. BP control was defined by the most recent BP reading within 24 months of the index date (January 1, 2020). BP was defined as controlled (<130/80 mm Hg), raised (130/80-139/89 mm Hg), stage 1 uncontrolled (140/90-159/99 mm Hg), or stage 2 uncontrolled (≥160/100 mm Hg). The primary outcome was death within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between BP control and outcomes. Of the 45 418 patients (mean age, 67 years; 44.7% male) included, 11 950 (26.3%) had controlled BP. These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had been diagnosed with hypertension for longer. A total of 4277 patients (9.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 877 died within 28 days. Individuals with stage 1 uncontrolled BP had lower odds of COVID-19 death (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]) compared with patients with well-controlled BP. There was no association between BP control and COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization. These findings suggest BP control may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, possibly due to these patients having more advanced atherosclerosis and target organ damage. Such patients may need to consider adhering to stricter social distancing, to limit the impact of COVID-19 as future waves of the pandemic occur.

For-profit long-term care homes and the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks and resident deaths.

Long-term care (LTC) homes have been the epicentre of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada to date. Previous research shows that for-profit LTC homes deliver inferior care across a variety of outcome and process measures, raising the question of whether for-profit homes have had worse COVID-19 outcomes than nonprofit homes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, from Mar. 29 to May 20, 2020, using a COVID-19 outbreak database maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. We used hierarchical logistic and count-based methods to model the associations between profit status of LTC homes (for-profit, nonprofit or municipal) and COVID-19 outbreaks in LTC homes, the extent of COVID-19 outbreaks (number of residents infected), and deaths of residents from COVID-19. The analysis included all 623 Ontario LTC homes, comprising 75 676 residents; 360 LTC homes (57.7%) were for profit, 162 (26.0%) were nonprofit, and 101 (16.2%) were municipal homes. There were 190 (30.5%) outbreaks of COVID-19 in LTC homes, involving 5218 residents and resulting in 1452 deaths, with an overall case fatality rate of 27.8%. The odds of a COVID-19 outbreak were associated with the incidence of COVID-19 in the public health unit region surrounding an LTC home (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.05), the number of residents (adjusted OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.61), and older design standards of the home (adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.01-2.38), but not profit status. For-profit status was associated with both the extent of an outbreak in an LTC home (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.96, 95% CI 1.26-3.05) and the number of resident deaths (adjusted RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.03-3.07), compared with nonprofit homes. These associations were mediated by a higher prevalence of older design standards in for-profit LTC homes and chain ownership. For-profit status is associated with the extent of an outbreak of COVID-19 in LTC homes and the number of resident deaths, but not the likelihood of outbreaks. Differences between for-profit and nonprofit homes are largely explained by older design standards and chain ownership, which should be a focus of infection control efforts and future policy.

Prealbumin as a Predictor of Prognosis in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: The predictive value of prealbumin for the prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been extensively investigated.Methods: A total of 1,115 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled at Tongji hospital from February to April 2020 and classified into fatal (n = 129) and recovered (n = 986) groups according to the patient's outcome. Prealbumin and other routine laboratory indicators were measured simultaneously.Results: The level of prealbumin on admission was significantly lower in fatal patients than in recovered patients. For predicting the prognosis of COVID-19, the performance of prealbumin was better than most routine laboratory indicators, such as albumin, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, hypersensitive C-reactive protein, d-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, creatinine, and hypersensitive cardiac troponin I. When a threshold of 126 mg/L was used to discriminate between fatal and recovered patients, the sensitivity and specificity of prealbumin were, respectively, 78.29 and 90.06%. Furthermore, a model based on the combination of nine indexes showed an improved performance in predicting the death of patients with COVID-19. Using a cut-off value of 0.19, the prediction model was able to distinguish between fatal and recovered individuals with a sensitivity of 86.82% and a specificity of 90.37%.Conclusions: A lower level of prealbumin on admission may indicate a worse outcome of COVID-19. Immune and nutritional status may be vital factors for predicting disease progression in the early stage of COVID-19.