Background Advanced age is a well-known risk factor for poor prognosis in COVID-19. However, few studies have specifically focused on very old inpatients with COVID-19. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics of very old inpatients with COVID-19 and identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality at admission. Methods We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, retrospective, observational study in patients ≥80 years hospitalized with COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19) Registry (March 1–May 29, 2020). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A uni- and multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of mortality at admission. Results 2,772 consecutive patients (49.4% men, median age 86.3 years) were analyzed. Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, dementia, and Barthel Index <60 were 30.8%, 25.6%, 30.5%, and 21.0%, respectively. The overall case-fatality rate was 46.9% (n:1,301) and increased with age (80-84 years:41.6%; 85-90 years:47.3%; 90-94 years:52.7%; ≥95 years:54.2%). After analysis, male sex and moderate-to-severe dependence were independently associated with in-hospital mortality; comorbidities were not predictive. At admission, independent risk factors for death were: SatO2 <90%; temperature ≥37.8ºC; qSOFA score ≥2; and unilateral-bilateral infiltrates on chest X-rays. Some analytical findings were independent risk factors for death, including eGFR <45 ml/min/1.73m 2; lactate dehydrogenase ≥500 U/L; CRP ≥80 mg/L; neutrophils ≥7.5x10 3/μL; lymphocytes <0.8x10 3/μL; and monocytes <0.5 x 10 3/μL. Conclusions This first large, multicenter cohort of very old inpatients with COVID-19 shows that age, male sex, and poor pre-admission functional status—not comorbidities—are independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Severe COVID-19 at admission is related to poor prognosis.

Background Whether immunosuppressed (IS) patients have a worse prognosis of COVID-19 compared to non-IS patients is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcome of IS patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to non-IS patients. Methods We designed a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large multicentre national cohort in Spain, from March 27th until June 19th, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of in-hospital death among IS compared to non-IS patients. Results Among 13 206 included patients, 2 111 (16.0%) were IS. A total of 166 (1.3%) patients had solid organ (SO) transplant, 1081 (8.2%) had SO neoplasia, 332 (2.5%) had hematologic neoplasia, and 570 (4.3%), 183 (1.4%) and 394 (3.0%) were receiving systemic steroids, biological treatments, and immunosuppressors, respectively. Compared to non-IS patients, the aOR (95% CI) for in-hospital death was 1.60 (1.43–1.79) for all IS patients, 1.39 (1.18–1.63) for patients with SO cancer, 2.31 (1.76–3.03) for patients with haematological cancer and 3.12 (2.23–4.36) for patients with SO transplant. The aOR (95% CI) for death for patients who were receiving systemic steroids, biological treatments and immunosuppressors compared to non-IS patients were 2.16 (1.80–2.61), 1.97 (1.33–2.91) and 2.06 (1.64–2.60), respectively. IS patients had a higher odds than non-IS patients of in-hospital acute respiratory distress syndrome, heart failure, myocarditis, thromboembolic disease and multiorgan failure. Conclusions IS patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have a higher odds of in-hospital complications and death compared to non-IS patients.

Background The detection of the first cases of transfusion-transmitted West Nile virus in 2002 posed a new challenge for transfusion safety. Institutions like the World Health Organization have stated that blood transfusion centers need to know the epidemiology of the different emerging infectious agents and their impact on blood transfusion. The aim of the study is to review the published cases of arbovirus transmission through transfusion of blood or blood components and to analyze their main clinical and epidemiological characteristics. Material and methods Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus. Pairs of review authors selected a variety of scientific publications reporting cases of transfusion-transmitted arboviruses. Main clinical and epidemiological characteristics were reviewed of the cases described. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42021270355. Results A total of 74 cases of transfusion-transmitted infections were identified from 10 arboviruses: West Nile virus (n = 42), dengue virus (n = 18), Zika virus (n = 3), yellow fever vaccine virus (n = 3), tick-borne encephalitis virus (n = 2), Japanese encephalitis virus (n = 2), Powassan virus (n = 1), St. Louis encephalitis virus (n = 1), Ross River virus (n = 1) and Colorado tick fever virus (n = 1). The blood component most commonly involved was red blood cells (N = 35, 47.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 35.9% to 58.7%). In 54.1% (N = 40; 95% CI: 42.7%-65.47%) of the cases, the recipient was immunosuppressed. Transmission resulted in death in 18.9% (N = 14; 95% CI: 10.0%-27.8%) of the recipients. In addition, 18 additional arboviruses were identified with a potential threat to transfusion safety. Discussion In the last 20 years, the number of published cases of transfusion-transmitted arboviruses increased notably, implicating new arboviruses. In addition, a significant number of arboviruses that may pose a threat to transfusion safety were detected. In the coming years, it is expected that transmission of arboviruses will continue to expand globally. It is therefore essential that all responsible agencies prepare for this potential threat to transfusion safety.

Background Old age is one of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19. Few studies have analyzed changes in the clinical characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 among older adults before the availability of vaccines. This work analyzes differences in clinical features and mortality in unvaccinated very old adults during the first and successive COVID-19 waves in Spain. Methods This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzes unvaccinated patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Patients were classified according to whether they were admitted in the first wave (March 1-June 30, 2020) or successive waves (July 1-December 31, 2020). The endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, expressed as the case fatality rate (CFR). Results Of the 21,461 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 5,953 (27.7%) were ≥ 80 years (mean age [IQR]: 85.6 [82.3–89.2] years). Of them, 4,545 (76.3%) were admitted during the first wave and 1,408 (23.7%) during successive waves. Patients hospitalized in successive waves were older, had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index and dependency, less cough and fever, and met fewer severity criteria at admission (qSOFA index, PO2/FiO2 ratio, inflammatory parameters). Significant differences were observed in treatments used in the first (greater use of antimalarials, lopinavir, and macrolides) and successive waves (greater use of corticosteroids, tocilizumab and remdesivir). In-hospital complications, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia, were less frequent in patients hospitalized in successive waves, except for heart failure. The CFR was significantly higher in the first wave (44.1% vs. 33.3%; -10.8%; p < 0.001) and was higher among patients ≥ 95 years (54.4% vs. 38.5%; -15.9%; p < 0.001). After adjustments to the model, the probability of death was 33% lower in successive waves (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57–0.79). Conclusions Mortality declined significantly between the first and successive waves in very old unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain. This decline could be explained by a greater availability of hospital resources and more effective treatments as the pandemic progressed, although other factors such as changes in SARS-CoV-2 virulence cannot be ruled out.

Background HIV/AIDS has attracted considerable research attention since the 1980s. In the current context of globalization and the predominance of cooperative work, it is crucial to analyze the participation of the countries and regions where the infection is most prevalent, African continent being the hardest hit (67.5% of estimated cases). This study assesses the participation of African countries in publications on the topic, as well as the degree of equity or influence existing in North-South relations.Methods We identified all articles and reviews of HIV/AIDS indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. We analyzed the scientific production, collaboration, and contributions from African and Middle Eastern countries to scientific activity in the region. The concept of leadership was used to determine the equity in research produced through international collaboration.Results A total of 68,808 documents published from 2010 to 2017 were analyzed. Researchers from North America and Europe participated in 82.14% of the global scientific production on HIV/AIDS, compared to just 21.61% from Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore, the research that did come out of these regions was concentrated in a small number of countries, led by South Africa (41% of the documents). Other features associated with HIV/AIDS research from Africa include the importance of international collaboration from the USA, the UK, and other European countries (75%-93% of the documents) and the limited leadership that is evident (30% to 36% of the documents). Finally, the research to which African countries contributed had a notably different disciplinary orientation, with a predominance of research on public health, epidemiology, and drug therapy.Conclusions It is essential to foster more balance in research output, avoid the concentration of resources that reproduces the global North-South model on the African continent, and focus the research agenda on local priorities. To accomplish this, the global North should strengthen the transfer of research skills and seek equity in cooperative ties, favoring the empowerment of African countries. These efforts should be concentrated in countries with low scientific activity and high incidence and prevalence of the disease. It is also essential to foster intraregional collaborations between African countries.