Citations

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. Subjects: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19–1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03–1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81–0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20–1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4–4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.)

Background: Describe the incidence and associated outcomes of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in hospitalized children (MIS-C). Methods: Retrospective review of the Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry, a prospective observational, multicenter international cohort study of hospitalized children with acute COVID-19 or MIS-C from March 2020 to November 2020. The primary outcome measure was critical COVID-19 illness. Multivariable models were performed to assess for associations of GI involvement with the primary composite outcome in the entire cohort and a subpopulation of patients with MIS-C. Secondary outcomes included prolonged hospital length of stay defined as being >75th percentile and mortality. Results: Of the 789 patients, GI involvement was present in 500 (63.3%). Critical illness occurred in 392 (49.6%), and 18 (2.3%) died. Those with GI involvement were older (median age of 8 yr), and 18.2% had an underlying GI comorbidity. GI symptoms and liver derangements were more common among patients with MIS-C. In the adjusted multivariable models, acute COVID-19 was no associated with the primary or secondary outcomes. Similarly, despite the preponderance of GI involvement in patients with MIS-C, it was also not associated with the primary or secondary outcomes. Conclusions: GI involvement is common in hospitalized children with acute COVID-19 and MIS-C. GI involvement is not associated with critical illness, hospital length of stay or mortality in acute COVID-19 or MIS-C.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, associated risk factors, and outcomes of serious neurologic manifestations (encephalopathy, stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis) among patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: One hundred seventy-nine hospitals in 24 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Of 16,225 patients enrolled in the registry with hospital discharge status available, 2,092 (12.9%) developed serious neurologic manifestations including 1,656 (10.2%) with encephalopathy at admission, 331 (2.0%) with stroke, 243 (1.5%) with seizure, and 73 (0.5%) with meningitis/encephalitis at admission or during hospitalization. Patients with serious neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 were older with median (interquartile range) age 72 years (61.0–81.0 yr) versus 61 years (48.0–72.0 yr) and had higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, including vascular risk factors. Adjusting for age, sex, and time since the onset of the pandemic, serious neurologic manifestations were associated with more severe disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; p < 0.001) as defined by the World Health Organization ordinal disease severity scale for COVID-19 infection. Patients with neurologic manifestations were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 1.45; p < 0.001) and require critical care interventions (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: OR, 1.78; p = 0.009 and renal replacement therapy: OR, 1.99; p < 0.001). Hospital, ICU, and 28-day mortality for patients with neurologic manifestations was higher (OR, 1.51, 1.37, and 1.58; p < 0.001), and patients had fewer ICU-free, hospital-free, and ventilator-free days (estimated difference in days, –0.84, –1.34, and –0.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Encephalopathy at admission is common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is associated with worse outcomes. While serious neurologic manifestations including stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis were less common, all were associated with increased ICU support utilization, more severe disease, and worse outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionThere are concerns regarding the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine in inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients. This systematic review and meta‐analysis comprehensively summarises the available literature regarding the safety and effectiveness of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine in IBD.MethodsThree independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles describing the response of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines in patients with IBD. Primary outcomes were (1) pooled seroconversion rate SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination in IBD patients (2) comparison of breakthrough COVID‐19 infection rate SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination in IBD patients with control cohort and (3) pooled adverse event rate of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine. All outcomes were evaluated for one and two doses of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine. Meta‐regression was performed. Probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger’s test.ResultsTwenty‐one studies yielded a pooled seroconversion rate of 73.7% and 96.8% in IBD patients after one and two doses of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine respectively. Sub‐group analysis revealed non‐statistically significant differences between different immunosuppressive regimens for seroconversion. Meta‐regression revealed that the vaccine type and study location independently influenced seroconversion rates. There was no statistically significant difference in breakthrough infection in IBD patients as compared to control after vaccination.ConclusionIn summary, the systematic review and meta‐analysis suggest that SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine is safe and effective in IBD patients.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of “guideline-based care” for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of “guideline-based care” for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in “guideline-based care.” A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.4) for receipt of “guideline-based care” compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47–62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use “guideline-based care” quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3–1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received “guideline-based care” for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

AbstractIntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Primary hypothyroidism is a common comorbid condition, but little is known about its association with COVID‐19 severity and outcomes. This study aims to identify the frequency of hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 as well as describe the differences in outcomes between patients with and without pre‐existing hypothyroidism using an observational, multinational registry.MethodsIn an observational cohort study we enrolled patients 18 years or older, with laboratory‐confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 infection between March 2020 and February 2021. The primary outcomes were (1) the disease severity defined as per the World Health Organization Scale for Clinical Improvement, which is an ordinal outcome corresponding with the highest severity level recorded during a patient's index COVID‐19 hospitalization, (2) in‐hospital mortality and (3) hospital‐free days. Secondary outcomes were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality.ResultsAmong the 20,366 adult patients included in the study, pre‐existing hypothyroidism was identified in 1616 (7.9%). The median age for the Hypothyroidism group was 70 (interquartile range: 59–80) years, and 65% were female and 67% were White. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (68%), diabetes (42%), dyslipidemia (37%) and obesity (28%). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, admission date in the quarter year since March 2020, race, smoking history and other comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia), pre‐existing hypothyroidism was not associated with higher odds of severe disease using the World Health Organization disease severity index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 1.13; p = .69), in‐hospital mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.15; p = .58) or differences in hospital‐free days (estimated difference 0.01 days; 95% CI: −0.45, 0.47; p = .97). Pre‐existing hypothyroidism was not associated with ICU admission or ICU mortality in unadjusted as well as in adjusted analysis.ConclusionsIn an international registry, hypothyroidism was identified in around 1 of every 12 adult hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Pre‐existing hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 was not associated with higher disease severity or increased risk of mortality or ICU admissions. However, more research on the possible effects of COVID‐19 on the thyroid gland and its function is needed in the future.