Background Multiple studies have attempted to elucidate the relationship between chronic hypoxia and SARS-CoV-2 infection. It seems that high-altitude is associated with lower COVID-19 related mortality and incidence rates; nevertheless, all the data came from observational studies, being this the first one looking into prospectively collected clinical data from severely ill patients residing at two significantly different altitudes. Methods A prospective cohort, a two-center study among COVID-19 confirmed adult patients admitted to a low (sea level) and high-altitude (2,850 m) ICU unit in Ecuador was conducted. Two hundred and thirty confirmed patients were enrolled from March 15th to July 15th, 2020. Results From 230 patients, 149 were men (64.8%) and 81 women (35.2%). The median age of all the patients was 60 years, and at least 105 (45.7%) of patients had at least one underlying comorbidity, including hypertension (33.5%), diabetes (16.5%), and chronic kidney failure (5.7%). The APACHE II scale (Score that estimates ICU mortality) at 72 hours was especially higher in the low altitude group with a median of 18 points (IQR: 9.5–24.0), compared to 9 points (IQR: 5.0–22.0) obtained in the high-altitude group. There is evidence of a difference in survival in favor of the high-altitude group (p = 0.006), the median survival being 39 days, compared to 21 days in the low altitude group. Conclusion There has been a substantial improvement in survival amongst people admitted to the high-altitude ICU. Residing at high-altitudes was associated with improved survival, especially among patients with no comorbidities. COVID-19 patients admitted to the high-altitude ICU unit have improved severity-of-disease classification system scores at 72 hours.

Background and aims Few studies have reported on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during the Covid-19 pandemic. We aimed to examine glycemic control metrics using flash glucose monitoring during insulin treatment and the clinical outcome in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods Prospective, single-center cohort of adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or hyperglycemia and COVID-19 infection treated with basal bolus insulin regimen. Glycemic control was assessed with the use of intermittent Freestyle Libre flash glucose monitoring during the hospital stay. Outcome of interest were time in range [TIR], time above [TAR] and below [TBR] range, glycemic variability [coefficient of variation [% CV]), and differences in a composite of complications including ICU admission, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 60 patients were included (44 known diabetes and 16 new onset hyperglycemia). In total 190,080 data points of CGM were available, of which 72.5% of values were within the target area [TIR (70–180 mg/dL)], 22% TAR (>180 mg/dL), and 3% were TBR (<70 mg/dL). During treatment, the coefficient of variation (% CV) was 30%. There were no association with TIR, but patients with TAR >180 mg/dl had higher rates of a composite of complications (22.5% vs 16%, p = 0.04). Conclusions Basal bolus insulin regimen was safe and effective in achieving inpatient glycemic control in most patients with COVID-19. The association between TAR and complications indicates the need for improved inpatient glycemic control in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

No abstract

BackgroundThe novel human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has affected at least 218 countries worldwide. Some geographical and environmental factors are positively associated with a better or worse prognosis concerning COVID-19 disease and with lower or higher SARS-CoV-2 transmission. High altitude exposure has been associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 attack rates; nevertheless, the role of chronic high-altitude exposure on the clinical outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients has not been studied.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in two intensive care units (ICU) located at low and high altitude.Exposure and OutcomeTo explore the effect of two different elevations (10 m vs 2,850 m above sea level) on COVID-19 clinical outcome and survival.MethodsA prospective cohort, two-center study in confirmed COVID-19 adult patients admitted to a low altitude (Sea level) and high altitude (2,850 m) ICU units in Ecuador was conducted. Two hundred and thirty confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled from March 15th to July 15th, 2020. Sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters including supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments and medical complications were reported and compared between the low and high-altitude groups.ResultsThe median age of all the patients was 60 years, 64.8% were men and 35.2% were women. A total of 105 (45.7%) patients had at least one underlying comorbidity, the most frequent being chronic diseases, such as hypertension (33.5%), diabetes (16.5%), and chronic kidney failure (5.7%). The APACHE II scale at 72 hours was especially higher in the low-altitude group with a median of 18 points (IQR: 9.5-24.0), compared to 9 points (IQR: 5.0-22.0) obtained in the group of high altitude. There is evidence of a difference in survival in favor of the high-altitude group (p = 0.006), the median survival being 39 days, compared to 21 days in the low altitude group.ConclusionThere has been a substantial improvement in survival amongst people admitted to the high-altitude critical care unit. High altitude living was associated with improved survival, especially among patients with no comorbidities. COVID-19 patients admitted to the high-altitude ICU unit have improved severity-of-disease classification system scores at 72 hours and reported better respiratory and ventilatory profiles than the low altitude group.