-
1.
Alarming increase in ketoacidosis in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel.
Goldman, S, Pinhas-Hamiel, O, Weinberg, A, Auerbach, A, German, A, Haim, A, Zung, A, Brener, A, Strich, D, Azoulay, E, et al
Pediatric diabetes. 2022;(1):10-18
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the incidence and severity of ketoacidosis (DKA) at type 1 diabetes diagnosis during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Israel. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A population-based study the product of a national collaboration of Israeli pediatric diabetes centers investigated the presentation of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes. The frequencies of DKA and severe DKA observed during the COVID-19 period from March 15, 2020 (commencement of the first nationwide lockdown) until June 30, 2020 were compared with the same periods in 2019, 2018, and 2017 using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic position. RESULTS During the COVID-19 period, DKA incidence was 58.2%, significantly higher than in 2019 (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.18 [95% CI, 1.31-3.60], P = 0.003); 2018 (aOR 2.05 [95% CI, 1.26-3.34], P = 0.004); and 2017 (aOR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.09-2.93], P = 0.022). The incidence of severe DKA was 19.9%, significantly higher than in 2018 (aOR, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.20-5.19], P = 0.015) and 2017 (aOR, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.28-5.82], P = 0.009). In 2020, admissions and duration of stay in the intensive care unit were higher than in previous years (P = 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, children aged 6-11 years had higher incidences of DKA (61.3% vs. 34.0%, 40.6%, and 45.1%, respectively, P = 0.012), and severe DKA (29.3% vs. 15.1%, 10.9%, and 5.9%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS The dramatic increase in DKA at presentation of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic mandates targeted measures to raise public and physician awareness.
-
2.
Individual outcome prediction models for patients with COVID-19 based on their first day of admission to the intensive care unit.
Rigo-Bonnin, R, Gumucio-Sanguino, VD, Pérez-Fernández, XL, Corral-Ansa, L, Fuset-Cabanes, M, Pons-Serra, M, Hernández-Jiménez, E, Ventura-Pedret, S, Boza-Hernández, E, Gasa, M, et al
Clinical biochemistry. 2022;:13-21
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, good prognosis and management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are crucial for developing disease management guidelines and providing a viable healthcare system. We aimed to propose individual outcome prediction models based on binary logistic regression (BLR) and artificial neural network (ANN) analyses of data collected in the first 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients with COVID-19 infection. We also analysed different variables for ICU patients who survived and those who died. METHODS Data from 326 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were collected. Data were captured on laboratory variables, demographics, comorbidities, symptoms and hospital stay related information. These data were compared with patient outcomes (survivor and non-survivor patients). BLR was assessed using the Wald Forward Stepwise method, and the ANN model was constructed using multilayer perceptron architecture. RESULTS The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ANN model was significantly larger than the BLR model (0.917 vs 0.810; p < 0.001) for predicting individual outcomes. In addition, ANN model presented similar negative predictive value than the BLR model (95.9% vs 94.8%). Variables such as age, pH, potassium ion, partial pressure of oxygen, and chloride were present in both models and they were significant predictors of death in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS Our study could provide helpful information for other hospitals to develop their own individual outcome prediction models based, mainly, on laboratory variables. Furthermore, it offers valuable information on which variables could predict a fatal outcome for ICU patients with COVID-19.
-
3.
Retrospective Study of Outcomes and Hospitalization Rates of Patients in Italy with a Confirmed Diagnosis of Early COVID-19 and Treated at Home Within 3 Days or After 3 Days of Symptom Onset with Prescribed and Non-Prescribed Treatments Between November 2020 and August 2021.
Fazio, S, Bellavite, P, Zanolin, E, McCullough, PA, Pandolfi, S, Affuso, F
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2021;:e935379
Abstract
BACKGROUND This retrospective study aimed to investigate outcomes and hospitalization rates in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of early COVID-19 treated at home with prescribed and non-prescribed treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS The medical records of a cohort of 158 Italian patients with early COVID-19 treated at home were analyzed. Treatments consisted of indomethacin, low-dose aspirin, omeprazole, and a flavonoid-based food supplement, plus azithromycin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and betamethasone as needed. The association of treatment timeliness and of clinical variables with the duration of symptoms and with the risk of hospitalization was evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n=85) was treated at the earliest possible time (<72 h from onset of symptoms), and group 2 (n=73) was treated >72 h after the onset of symptoms. Clinical severity at the beginning of treatment was similar in the 2 groups. In group 1, symptom duration was shorter than in group 2 (median 6.0 days vs 13.0 days, P<0.001) and no hospitalizations occurred, compared with 19.18% hospitalizations in group 2. One patient in group 1 developed chest X-ray alterations and 2 patients experienced an increase in D-dimer levels, compared with 30 and 22 patients, respectively, in group 2. The main factor determining the duration of symptoms and the risk of hospitalization was the delay in starting therapy (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS This real-world study of patients in the community showed that early diagnosis and early supportive patient management reduced the severity of COVID-19 and reduced the rate of hospitalization.
-
4.
Differences in mortality in critically ill elderly patients during the second COVID-19 surge in Europe.
Jung, C, Fjølner, J, Bruno, RR, Wernly, B, Artigas, A, Bollen Pinto, B, Schefold, JC, Wolff, G, Kelm, M, Beil, M, et al
Critical care (London, England). 2021;(1):344
Abstract
BACKGROUND The primary aim of this study was to assess the outcome of elderly intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated during the spring and autumn COVID-19 surges in Europe. METHODS This was a prospective European observational study (the COVIP study) in ICU patients aged 70 years and older admitted with COVID-19 disease from March to December 2020 to 159 ICUs in 14 European countries. An electronic database was used to register a number of parameters including: SOFA score, Clinical Frailty Scale, co-morbidities, usual ICU procedures and survival at 90 days. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04321265). RESULTS In total, 2625 patients were included, 1327 from the first and 1298 from the second surge. Median age was 74 and 75 years in surge 1 and 2, respectively. SOFA score was higher in the first surge (median 6 versus 5, p < 0.0001). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission was higher during surge 1, and more patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (78% versus 68%, p < 0.0001). During the first 15 days of treatment, survival was similar during the first and the second surge. Survival was lower in the second surge after day 15 and differed after 30 days (57% vs 50%) as well as after 90 days (51% vs 40%). CONCLUSION An unexpected, but significant, decrease in 30-day and 90-day survival was observed during the second surge in our cohort of elderly ICU patients. The reason for this is unclear. Our main concern is whether the widespread changes in practice and treatment of COVID-19 between the two surges have contributed to this increased mortality in elderly patients. Further studies are urgently warranted to provide more evidence for current practice in elderly patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT04321265 , registered March 19th, 2020.
-
5.
COVID-19 in older adults: What are the differences with younger patients?
Gómez-Belda, AB, Fernández-Garcés, M, Mateo-Sanchis, E, Madrazo, M, Carmona, M, Piles-Roger, L, Artero, A
Geriatrics & gerontology international. 2021;(1):60-65
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIM: The present study aimed both to gain knowledge on the distinctive clinical characteristics of older adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in comparison with those of younger patients, and to identify risk factors for mortality. METHODS A retrospective observational study was carried out of patients consecutively admitted to Doctor Peset University Hospital, Valencia (Spain) for COVID-19 from 11 March to 28 April 2020. Every case was diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or by serology test to detect antibodies. Demographic details, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings on admission and complications of each case were collected from electronic medical records. RESULTS The dataset comprised 340 patients. Of them, 152 (44.6%) were aged >70 years. Comorbidities were more common in the older groups. Confusion was more common in older adults, whereas typical symptoms of COVID-19, such as fever, cough and myalgia, were less common. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air, neutrophilia, D-dimer >0.5 μg/mL, creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, lactate dehydrogenase ≥250 U/L and elevation of creatine kinase were higher in the older adult groups. Complications during hospitalization, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (53.3% vs 33.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (11.8% vs 5.3%; P = 0.030) and mortality (28.9% vs 6.5%; P < 0.001) were more common in patients aged >70 years. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air on admission was a predictor of mortality (odds ratio 11.65, 95% confidence interval 3.26-41.66, P < 0.001) in patients aged >70 years. CONCLUSIONS Older adults with COVID-19 have more atypical presentation, more complications and higher mortality. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air on admission is a predictive factor of death. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 60-65.
-
6.
Association between use of Qingfei Paidu Tang and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A national retrospective registry study.
Zhang, L, Zheng, X, Bai, X, Wang, Q, Chen, B, Wang, H, Lu, J, Hu, S, Zhang, X, Zhang, H, et al
Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology. 2021;:153531
Abstract
BACKGROUND Qingfei Paidu Tang (QPT), a formula of traditional Chinese medicine, which was suggested to be able to ease symptoms in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been recommended by clinical guidelines and widely used to treat COVID-19 in China. However, whether it decreases mortality remains unknown. PURPOSE We aimed to explore the association between QPT use and in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective study based on a real-world database was conducted. METHODS We identified patients consecutively hospitalized with COVID-19 in 15 hospitals from a national retrospective registry in China, from January through May 2020. Data on patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were extracted from the electronic medical records. The association of QPT use with COVID-19 related mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models based on propensity score analysis. RESULTS Of the 8939 patients included, 28.7% received QPT. The COVID-19 related mortality was 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8% to 1.7%) among the patients receiving QPT and 4.8% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) among those not receiving QPT. After adjustment for patient characteristics and concomitant treatments, QPT use was associated with a relative reduction of 50% in-hospital COVID-19 related mortality (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66 p < 0.001). This association was consistent across subgroups by sex and age. Meanwhile, the incidences of acute liver injury (8.9% [95% CI, 7.8% to 10.1%] vs. 9.9% [95% CI, 9.2% to 10.7%]; odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81% to 1.14%], p = 0.658) and acute kidney injury (1.6% [95% CI, 1.2% to 2.2%] vs. 3.0% [95% CI, 2.6% to 3.5%]; odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17], p = 0.318) were comparable between patients receiving QPT and those not receiving QPT. The major study limitations included that the study was an observational study based on real-world data rather than a randomized control trial, and the quality of data could be affected by the accuracy and completeness of medical records. CONCLUSIONS QPT was associated with a substantially lower risk of in-hospital mortality, without extra risk of acute liver injury or acute kidney injury among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
-
7.
Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study.
Menni, C, Klaser, K, May, A, Polidori, L, Capdevila, J, Louca, P, Sudre, CH, Nguyen, LH, Drew, DA, Merino, J, et al
The Lancet. Infectious diseases. 2021;(7):939-949
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. METHODS In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). FINDINGS Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. INTERPRETATION Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. FUNDING ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.
-
8.
Changes in diet quality and food security among adults during the COVID-19-related early lockdown: results from NutriQuébec.
Lamarche, B, Brassard, D, Lapointe, A, Laramée, C, Kearney, M, Côté, M, Bélanger-Gravel, A, Desroches, S, Lemieux, S, Plante, C
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2021;(4):984-992
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related early lockdown has had on dietary habits of the population and on food insecurity is unknown. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to document the change in diet quality and in food insecurity observed during the COVID-19-related early lockdown. We hypothesized that the lockdown was associated with a deterioration in overall diet quality and an increase in food insecurity. METHODS Data are from a COVID-19 subsample of NutriQuébec, a web-based cohort destined to study temporal changes in dietary habits among adults in Quebec, Canada. Participants completed questionnaires before (between June 2019 and February 2020) and during (April to May 2020) early lockdown, including a validated web-based 24-h recall (n = 853) and a questionnaire on food security (n = 922). Primary study outcomes were temporal changes in diet quality measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 and in the prevalence of food insecurity. RESULTS There was a small increase in the HEI-2015 during the COVID-19 early lockdown compared with baseline (+1.1 points; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.5), mostly due to small improvements in the intakes of whole grains, greens and beans, refined grains, total vegetables, total dairy, seafood and plant proteins, added sugar, and total protein subscores of the HEI-2015. Exploratory analyses suggested that individuals aged 18-29 y (+3.6 points; 95% CI: 2.4, 4.7), participants with lower education (+1.9 points; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.6), or with obesity (+3.8 points; 95% CI: 2.7, 4.8) showed particularly important increases in the HEI-2015. The prevalence of food insecurity was reduced from 3.8% at baseline to 1.0% during the early lockdown (prevalence ratio = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS Contrary to our hypotheses, diet quality has slightly improved and prevalence of food insecurity was reduced in this sample of adults from Quebec during the COVID-19-related early lockdown. These results may be generalizable only to relatively healthy populations.
-
9.
Comparison between Nutric Score and modified nutric score to assess ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
Liberti, A, Piacentino, E, Umbrello, M, Muttini, S
Clinical nutrition ESPEN. 2021;:479-482
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill (NUTRIC score) and modified Nutric score (mNUTRIC score) have been validated as screening tool for quantifying risk of adverse outcome in patients admitted in intensive care department. They differ for the measurement of IL-6 levels. In patients with COVID-19 disease the inflammatory response plays a crucial role leading to cytochine storm responsible of multiple organ damage. In this population, levels of IL-6 have been measured as indicator of inflammatory status. Aim of the study is to compare prognostic performance of both scores in predicting ICU mortality between patients with COVID-19 disease. METHODS A single centre, retrospective, cohort study on patients admitted in ICU with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed. Prognostic performance of NUTRIC score and mNUTRIC score were assessed and compared for discriminative abilities for ICU-mortality. RESULTS 43 patients were enrolled, age 64 (55; 70), BMI 28 ± 4. Mean NUTRIC score was 2.5 ± 1, mNUTRIC was 2.6 ± 1.1. Mortality was 39.5%, all patients had low nutritional risk according to both scores (≤5 and ≤ 4 for NUTRIC and mNUTRIC score respectively). The discriminative ability of Nutric Score for ICU mortality was 0.675 (95% CI: 0.524-0.825), while that of mNutric score was 0.655 (0.513-0.861), p = 0.667. CONCLUSIONS Prognostic performance of Nutric score and mNutric score is comparable, but the discriminative ability is low even in patients with high inflammatory status as in COVID-19 affected population. These scores may not be appropriate in patients with COVID-19 for the determination of nutritional risk.
-
10.
Prevalence of malnutrition in coronavirus disease 19: the NUTRICOV study.
Rouget, A, Vardon-Bounes, F, Lorber, P, Vavasseur, A, Marion, O, Marcheix, B, Lairez, O, Balardy, L, Fourcade, O, Conil, JM, et al
The British journal of nutrition. 2021;(9):1296-1303
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Recent European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition guidelines highlighted the interest of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of malnutrition in the management of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of malnutrition in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. In a prospective observational cohort study malnutrition was diagnosed according to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) two-step approach. Patients were divided into two groups according to the diagnosis of malnutrition. Covariate selection for the multivariate analysis was based on P <0·2 in univariate analysis, with a logistic regression model and a backward elimination procedure. A partitioning of the population was realised. Eighty patients were prospectively enrolled. Thirty patients (37·5 %) had criteria for malnutrition. The need for intensive care unit admission (n 46, 57·5 %) was similar in the two groups. Three patients who died (3·75 %) were malnourished. Multivariate analysis exhibited that low BMI (OR 0·83, 95 % CI 0·73, 0·96, P = 0·0083), dyslipidaemia (OR 29·45, 95 % CI 3·12, 277·73, P = 0·0031), oral intake reduction <50 % (OR 3·169, 95 % CI 1·04, 9·64, P = 0·0422) and glomerular filtration rate (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration; CKD-EPI) at admission (OR 0·979, 95 % CI 0·96, 0·998, P = 0·0297) were associated with the occurrence of malnutrition. We demonstrate the existence of a high prevalence of malnutrition in a general cohort of COVID-19 inpatients according to GLIM criteria. Nutritional support in COVID-19 care seems an essential element.