1.
Fasting blood glucose at admission is an independent predictor for 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 without previous diagnosis of diabetes: a multi-centre retrospective study.
Wang, S, Ma, P, Zhang, S, Song, S, Wang, Z, Ma, Y, Xu, J, Wu, F, Duan, L, Yin, Z, et al
Diabetologia. 2020;63(10):2102-2111
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Hyperglycaemia was a risk factor for mortality from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and is an independent risk factor for lower respiratory tract infection and poor prognosis. The aim of this retrospective study of 605 patients without previously diagnosed diabetes was to examine the association between fasting blood glucose (FBG) on admission and the 28-day in hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. Patients with a FBG level of 7.0mmol/l or over had more than double the risk of dying than those with a level of 6.0mmol/l or less. Other risk factors for mortality included age, being male, and severity of pneumonia at admission. Compared with patients whose FBG was 6.0mmol/l or lower at admission, patients with FBG of 7.0 mmol/l and above had a 3.99 times higher risk of in-hospital complications, whilst those with FBG of 6.1–6.9 mmol/l had a 2.61 times higher risk of complications. The authors conclude that glycaemic testing and control are important to all COVID-19 patients even where they have no pre-existing diabetes.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS Hyperglycaemia is associated with an elevated risk of mortality in community-acquired pneumonia, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, trauma and surgery, among other conditions. In this study, we examined the relationship between fasting blood glucose (FBG) and 28-day mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients not previously diagnosed as having diabetes. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study involving all consecutive COVID-19 patients with a definitive 28-day outcome and FBG measurement at admission from 24 January 2020 to 10 February 2020 in two hospitals based in Wuhan, China. Demographic and clinical data, 28-day outcomes, in-hospital complications and CRB-65 scores of COVID-19 patients in the two hospitals were analysed. CRB-65 is an effective measure for assessing the severity of pneumonia and is based on four indicators, i.e. confusion, respiratory rate (>30/min), systolic blood pressure (≤90 mmHg) or diastolic blood pressure (≤60 mmHg), and age (≥65 years). RESULTS Six hundred and five COVID-19 patients were enrolled, including 114 who died in hospital. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that age (HR 1.02 [95% CI 1.00, 1.04]), male sex (HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.17, 2.60]), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR 2.68 [95% CI 1.56, 4.59]), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR 5.25 [95% CI 2.05, 13.43]) and FBG ≥7.0 mmol/l (HR 2.30 [95% CI 1.49, 3.55]) were independent predictors for 28-day mortality. The OR for 28-day in-hospital complications in those with FBG ≥7.0 mmol/l and 6.1-6.9 mmol/l vs <6.1 mmol/l was 3.99 (95% CI 2.71, 5.88) or 2.61 (95% CI 1.64, 4.41), respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION FBG ≥7.0 mmol/l at admission is an independent predictor for 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 without previous diagnosis of diabetes. Glycaemic testing and control are important to all COVID-19 patients even where they have no pre-existing diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders. Graphical abstract.
2.
Clinical significance of nutritional risk screening for older adult patients with COVID-19.
Liu, G, Zhang, S, Mao, Z, Wang, W, Hu, H
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2020;74(6):876-883
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Literature shows that nutritional deficiency is common and serious in the elderly, with studies reporting malnourishment in 35–65% of elderly hospitalized patients and 25–60% of institutionalized older adults. The aim of this study to explore the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical outcome in patients older than 65 years with COVID-19. A secondary outcome was to investigate the ability of the (nutritional risk screening) NRS tools to predict worse-than-average clinical outcomes. The study is a retrospective cohort analysis which enrolled 141 patients (females n = 73). Patients were classified into either a normal group or a nutritional risk group according to the criterion of each NRS tool. Results indicate that patients with COVID-19 who classified as having a nutritional risk had significantly poorer clinical outcomes than those classified as normal following assessments by Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Mini Nutrition Assessment Shortcut (MNA-sf), and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI). Authors conclude that the NRS 2002, MNAsf, and NRI are useful and practical tools for identifying older adult patients with COVID-19 who are at nutritional risk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional risks among older patients with COVID-19 and their associated clinical outcomes using four nutritional risk screening (NRS) tools: Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Mini Nutrition Assessment Shortcut (MNA-sf), and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with COVID-19 older than 65 years who were treated in our hospital from January 28, 2020 to March 5, 2020, and explored the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 141 patients with COVID-19 (46 common COVID-19, 73 severe COVID-19, and 22 extremely severe COVID-19) were enrolled in the study. NRS 2002 identified 85.8% of patients as having risk, with being identified 41.1% by MUST, 77.3% by MNA-sf, and 71.6% by NRI. The agreement strength was moderate between NRS 2002 and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MUST and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MNA-sf and NRI, poor between NRS 2002 and MUST (P < 0.01). After adjustment for confounding factors in multivariate regression analysis, patients in the risk group had significantly longer LOS, higher hospital expenses (except MNA-sf), poor appetite, heavier disease severity, and more weight change(kg) than normal patients by using NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI(P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI are useful and practical tools with respect to screening for patients with COVID-19 who are at nutritional risk, as well as in need of additional nutritional intervention.