Risk Categories in COVID-19 Based on Degrees of Inflammation: Data on More Than 17,000 Patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2  = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2  = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2  = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2  = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential

Introduction

This study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions.

Methods

We describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach.

Results

Overlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment.

Conclusion

Overlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.

Safety and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with end-stage renal disease: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir has been used to treat severe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); however, its safety and effectiveness in patients remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 21,621 adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of ESRD. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

To compare the adverse effects of remdesivir, propensity scores were used for one-to-one matching between patients with and without ESRD treated with remdesivir (N = 110). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rates, blood glucose levels, variations in hemoglobin levels before and after remdesivir use, or liver function between the two groups after remdesivir use. A comparison was made between patients with ESRD using remdesivir and those not using remdesivir after propensity score matching (N = 44). Although a shorter length of stay (LOS), lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and lower intubation rate were noted in the ESRD group treated with remdesivir, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir is safe for use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD; no increased adverse effects were noted compared with patients without ESRD. However, the effectiveness of remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD remains uncertain.

Mortality reduction in older COVID-19-patients hospitalized in Spain during the second pandemic wave from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic followed a two-wave pattern in most countries. Hospital admission for COVID-19 in one wave or another could have affected mortality, especially among the older persons. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the admission of older patients during the different waves, before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was available, was associated with a different mortality. We compared the mortality rates of patients hospitalized during 2020 before (first wave) and after (second wave) July 7, 2020, included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients admitted to 126 Spanish hospitals for COVID-19. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to control for changes in either the patient or disease profile. As of December 26, 2022, 22,494 patients had been included (17,784 from the first wave and 4710 from the second one). Overall mortality was 20.4% in the first wave and 17.2% in the second wave (risk difference (RD) - 3.2%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 4.4 to - 2.0). Only patients aged 70 and older (10,973 patients: 8571 in the first wave and 2386 in the second wave) had a significant reduction in mortality (RD - 7.6%; 95% CI - 9.7 to - 5.5) (unadjusted relative risk reduction: 21.6%). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, variables related to the severity of the disease, and treatment received, admission during the second wave remained a protective factor. In Spain, patients aged 70 years and older admitted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly lower risk of mortality, except in severely dependent persons in need of corticosteroid treatment. This effect is independent of patient characteristics, disease severity, or treatment received. This suggests a protective effect of a better standard of care, greater clinical expertise, or a lesser degree of healthcare system overload.

Validation of the COVID-19-12O score for predicting readmissions/revisits in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19-12O-score has been validated to determine the risk of respiratory failure in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Our study aims to assess whether the score is effective in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from a hospital emergency department (HED) to predict readmission and revisit.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged consecutively from an HUS of a tertiary hospital, from January 7 to February 17, 2021, where we applied the COVID-19-12O -score, with a cut-off point of 9 points to define the risk of admission or revisit. The primary outcome variable was revisit with or without hospital readmission after 30 days of discharge from HUS.

RESULTS

We included 77 patients, with a median age of 59 years, 63.6% men and Charlson index of 2. 9.1% had an emergency room revisit and 15.3% had a deferred hospital admission. The relative risk (RR) for emergency journal was 0.46 (0.04-4.62, 95% CI, p=0.452), and the RR for hospital readmission was 6.88 (1.20-39.49, 95% CI, p<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19-12O -score is effective in determining the risk of hospital readmission in patients discharged from HED with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but is not useful for assessing the risk of revisit.

[Validation of the COVID-19-12O scale for predicting readmissions/revisits in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from the emergency department]

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19-12O scale has been validated for determining the risk of respiratory failure in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. This study aims to assess whether the scale is effective for predicting readmissions and revisits in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from a hospital emergency department (HED).

METHOD

This work is a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from the HED of a tertiary hospital from January 7 to February 17, 2021. The COVID-19-12O scale with a cut-off point of nine points was used to define the risk of admissions or revisits. The primary outcome variable was a revisit with or without hospital readmission after 30 days of discharge from the HED.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were included. The median age was 59 years, 63.6% were men, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2. A total of 9.1% had an emergency room revisit and 15.3% had a deferred hospital admission. The relative risk (RR) for an HED revisit was 0.46 (0.04-4.62, 95% CI p=0.452) and the RR for hospital readmission was 6.88 (1.20-39.49, 95% CI, p<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19-12O scale is effective in determining the risk of hospital readmission in patients discharged from an HED with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but is not useful for assessing the risk of revisit.

Effective Natural Killer Cell Degranulation Is an Essential Key in COVID-19 Evolution

NK degranulation plays an important role in the cytotoxic activity of innate immunity in the clearance of intracellular infections and is an important factor in the outcome of the disease. This work has studied NK degranulation and innate immunological profiles and functionalities in COVID-19 patients and its association with the severity of the disease. A prospective observational study with 99 COVID-19 patients was conducted. Patients were grouped according to hospital requirements and severity. Innate immune cell subpopulations and functionalities were analyzed. The profile and functionality of innate immune cells differ between healthy controls and severe patients; CD56dim NK cells increased and MAIT cells and NK degranulation rates decreased in the COVID-19 subjects. Higher degranulation rates were observed in the non-severe patients and in the healthy controls compared to the severe patients. Benign forms of the disease had a higher granzymeA/granzymeB ratio than complex forms. In a multivariate analysis, the degranulation capacity resulted in a protective factor against severe forms of the disease (OR: 0.86), whereas the permanent expression of NKG2D in NKT cells was an independent risk factor (OR: 3.81; AUC: 0.84). In conclusion, a prompt and efficient degranulation functionality in the early stages of infection could be used as a tool to identify patients who will have a better evolution.

Clusters of inflammation in COVID-19: descriptive analysis and prognosis on more than 15,000 patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Uncontrolled inflammation following COVID-19 infection is an important characteristic of the most seriously ill patients. The present study aims to describe the clusters of inflammation in COVID-19 and to analyze their prognostic role. This is a retrospective observational study including 15,691 patients with a high degree of inflammation. They were included in the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified 7 clusters. C1 is characterized by lymphopenia, C2 by elevated ferritin, and C3 by elevated LDH. C4 is characterized by lymphopenia plus elevated CRP and LDH and frequently also ferritin. C5 is defined by elevated CRP, and C6 by elevated ferritin and D-dimer, and frequently also elevated CRP and LDH. Finally, C7 is characterized by an elevated D-dimer. The clusters with the highest in-hospital mortality were C4, C6, and C7 (17.4% vs. 18% vs. 15.6% vs. 36.8% vs. 17.5% vs. 39.3% vs. 26.4%). Inflammation clusters were found as independent factors for in-hospital mortality. In detail and, having cluster C1 as reference, the model revealed a worse prognosis for all other clusters: C2 (OR = 1.30, p = 0.001), C3 (OR = 1.14, p = 0.178), C4 (OR = 2.28, p < 0.001), C5 (OR = 1.07, p = 0.479), C6 (OR = 2.29, p < 0.001), and C7 (OR = 1.28, p = 0.001). We identified 7 groups based on the presence of lymphopenia, elevated CRP, LDH, ferritin, and D-dimer at the time of hospital admission for COVID-19. Clusters C4 (lymphopenia + LDH + CRP), C6 (ferritin + D-dimer), and C7 (D-dimer) had the worst prognosis in terms of in-hospital mortality.

WHO Ordinal Scale and Inflammation Risk Categories in COVID-19. Comparative Study of the Severity Scales

BACKGROUND

The WHO ordinal severity scale has been used to predict mortality and guide trials in COVID-19. However, it has its limitations.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to compare three classificatory and predictive models: the WHO ordinal severity scale, the model based on inflammation grades, and the hybrid model.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with patient data collected and followed up from March 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, from the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. As this was a hospital-based study, the patients included corresponded to categories 3 to 7 of the WHO ordinal scale. Categories 6 and 7 were grouped in the same category.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 17,225 patients were included in the study. Patients classified as high risk in each of the WHO categories according to the degree of inflammation were as follows: 63.8% vs. 79.9% vs. 90.2% vs. 95.1% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for WHO ordinal scale categories 3 to 6/7 was as follows: 0.8% vs. 24.3% vs. 45.3% vs. 34% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the combined categories of ordinal scale 3a to 5b was as follows: 0.4% vs. 1.1% vs. 11.2% vs. 27.5% vs. 35.5% vs. 41.1% (p<0.001). The predictive regression model for in-hospital mortality with our proposed combined ordinal scale reached an AUC=0.871, superior to the two models separately.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study proposes a new severity grading scale for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In our opinion, it is the most informative, representative, and predictive scale in COVID-19 patients to date.

The Use of Corticosteroids or Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Based on Inflammatory Markers

BACKGROUND

The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer it remains undefined.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and D-dimer values.

PATIENTS

A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%, p=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high-risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%, p=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.

Does admission acetylsalicylic acid uptake in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have a protective role? Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is widely used in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disorders. Our objective is to evaluate its possible protective role, not only in mortality but also in other aspects such as inflammation, symptomatic thrombosis, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We realized an observational retrospective cohort study of 20,641 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia collected and followed-up from Mar 1st, 2020 to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to determine whether treatment with ASA affected outcomes in COVID-19 patients. On hospital admission, 3291 (15.9%) patients were receiving ASA. After PSM, 3291 patients exposed to ASA and 2885 not-exposed patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was higher in the ASA group (30.4 vs. 16.9%, p < 0.001) in the global sample. After PSM, no differences were found between groups (30.4 vs. 30.3%, p = 0.938). There were no differences in inflammation, symptomatic thrombosis, or ICU admission. In conclusion, ASA intake is not associated with in-hospital mortality or any other health outcome evaluated after applying PSM analysis in a real-world large sample of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Beneficial and harmful outcomes of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The results of studies of tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID‐19 are contradictory. Our study aims to update medical evidence from controlled observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of TCZ in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19.

Methods

We searched the following databases from January 1, 2020 to April 13, 2021 (date of the last search): MEDLINE database through the PubMed search engine and Scopus, using the terms (“COVID‐19" [Supplementary Concept]) AND "tocilizumab" [Supplementary Concept]).

Results

Sixty four studies were included in the present study: 54 were controlled observational studies (50 retrospective and 4 prospective) and 10 were RCTs. The overall results provided data from 20,616 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19: 7668 patients received TCZ in addition to standard of care (SOC) (including 1915 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with reported mortality) and 12,948 patients only receiving SOC (including 4410 patients admitted to the ICU with reported mortality). After applying the random‐effects model, the hospital‐wide (including ICU) pooled mortality odds ratio (OR) of patients with COVID‐19 treated with TCZ was 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56–0.93). The pooled hospital‐wide mortality OR was 1.25 (95% CI = 0.74–2.18) in patients admitted at conventional wards versus 0.66 (95% CI = 0.59–0.76) in patients admitted to the ICU. The pooled OR of hospital‐wide mortality (including ICU) of COVID‐19 patients treated with TCZ plus corticosteroids (CS) was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.54–0.84). The pooled in‐hospital mortality OR was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.35–1.42) when TCZ was early administered (≤10 days from symptom onset) versus 0.83 (95% CI 0.48–1.45) for late administration (>10 days from symptom onset). The meta‐analysis did not find significantly higher risk for secondary infections in COVID‐19 patients treated with TCZ.

Conclusions

TCZ prevented mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID‐19. This benefit was seen to a greater extent in patients receiving concomitant CS and when TCZ administration occurred within the first 10 days after symptom onset.