1.
The impact of frailty on intra-hospital survival in older patients with COVID-19 infection: the importance of early identification. SEMI-COVID National Registry.
López-Sampalo, A, Hernández-Negrín, H, Bernal-López, MR, Rubio-Rivas, M, Martín-Escalante, MD, Wikman-Jogersen, P, García-Reyne, A, Fernández-Madera Martínez, R, Gómez-Antúnez, M, Beato-Pérez, JL, et al
Revista clinica espanola. 2023;(8):461-469
Abstract
BACKGROUND Emerging evidence suggests that frailty may be a significant predictor of poor outcomes in older individuals hospitalized due to COVID-19. This study aims to determine the prognostic value of frailty on intrahospital patient survival. METHODS This observational, multicenter, nationwide study included patients aged 70 years and older who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain between March 1 and December 31, 2020. Patient data were obtained from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome was hospital survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS A total of 1,878 participants (52% men and 48% women) were included, with 1,351 (71.9%) survivors and 527 (28.1%) non-survivors. The non-survivor group had higher mean age (83.5 vs. 81 years), comorbidities (6.3 vs. 5.3 points on the Charlson index), degree of dependency (26.8% vs. 12.4% severely dependent patients), and frailty (34.5% vs. 14.7% severely frail patients) compared to survivors. However, there were no differences in terms of sex. Our results demonstrate that a moderate-severe degree of frailty is the primary factor independently associated with shorter survival [HR 2.344 (1.437-3.823; p<0.001) for CFS 5-6 and 3.694 (2.155-6.330; p<0.001) for CFS 7-9]. CONCLUSION Frailty is the main predictor of adverse outcomes in older patients with COVID-19. The utilization of tools such as the Clinical Frailty Scale is crucial for early detection in this population.
2.
Pathogen inactivation methods to prevent transfusion-transmissible arboviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Giménez-Richarte, Á, Ortiz de Salazar, MI, Giménez-Richarte, MP, Larrea, L, Arbona, C, Marco, P, Ramos-Rincón, JM
Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2023;(4):262-274
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Arboviruses are emerging as a relevant threat to transfusion safety. Pathogen inactivation methods (PIMs) may reduce the risk of transmission through transfusion, as long as they meet minimum standards for effectiveness. This study aims to assess the log reduction of viral load achieved with different PIMs, according to the blood product they are used on and the arbovirus targeted. METHODS Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42022312061. We selected records reporting the log reduction of viral load achieved with the main PIMs (amotosalen + UVA light [INTERCEPT], riboflavin + UV light [Mirasol], methylene blue + visible light/UVC light [THERAFLEX], solvent detergent, amustaline [INTERCEPT] and PEN110 [Inactine]), applied to any blood product (plasma, platelets, red blood cells or whole blood) and for any arbovirus. The log reduction of viral loads was assessed by obtaining the mean log reduction factor (LRF). We compared and classified the LRF of different techniques using statistical methods. RESULTS We included 59 publications reporting LRF results in 17 arboviruses. For 13 arboviruses, including Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus, West Nile virus and Zika virus, at least one of the methods achieves adequate or optimal log reduction of viral load-mean LRF ≥4. The LRF achieved with riboflavin + UV light is inferior to the rest of the techniques, both overall and specifically for plasma, platelets preserved in platelet additive solution (PAS)/plasma, and red blood cells/whole blood. The LRF achieved using Mirasol is also lower for inactivating Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus and Zika virus. For West Nile virus, we found no significant differences. In plasma, the method that achieves the highest LRF is solvent/detergent; in platelets, THERAFLEX and INTERCEPT; and in red blood cells/whole blood, PEN110 (Inactine). CONCLUSION Not all PIMs achieve the same LRF, nor is this equivalent between the different arboviruses or blood products. Overall, the LRFs achieved using riboflavin + UV light (Mirasol) are inferior to those achieved with the rest of the PIMs. Regarding the others, LRFs vary by arbovirus and blood product. In light of the threat of different arboviruses, blood establishments should have already validated PIMs and be logistically prepared to implement these techniques quickly.
3.
Mortality and other adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering drugs: a nationwide cohort study.
Pérez-Belmonte, LM, Torres-Peña, JD, López-Carmona, MD, Ayala-Gutiérrez, MM, Fuentes-Jiménez, F, Jorge Huerta, L, Muñoz, JA, Rubio-Rivas, M, Madrazo, M, Garcia, MG, et al
BMC medicine. 2020;(1):359
Abstract
BACKGROUND Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. METHODS We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. RESULTS A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.