Background: Evidence to support the use of steroids in COVID-19 pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, adjusting by a propensity-score for steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using log-rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Results: During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8-13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], HR 0.51 [0.27-0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048- 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). Conclusions: Our results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.
Background: COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a major complication of critically ill COVID-19 patients, with a high mortality rate and potentially preventable. Thus, identifying patients at high risk of CAPA would be of great interest.We intended to develop a clinical prediction score capable of stratifying patients according to the risk for CAPA at ICU admission.Methods: Single centre retrospective case-control study. A case was defined as a patient diagnosed with CAPA according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria. 2 controls were selected for each case among critically ill COVID-19 patients.Results: 28 CAPA patients and 56-matched controls were included. Factors associated with CAPA included old age (68 years vs. 62, p = .033), active smoking (17.9% vs. 1.8%, p = .014), chronic respiratory diseases (48.1% vs. 26.3%, p = .043), chronic renal failure (25.0% vs. 3.6%, p = .005), chronic corticosteroid treatment (28.6% vs. 1.8%, p < .001), tocilizumab therapy (92.9% vs. 66.1%, p = .008) and high APACHE II at ICU admission (median 13 vs. 10 points, p = .026). A score was created including these variables, which showed an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.854 (95% CI 0.77-0.92). A punctuation below 6 had a negative predictive value of 99.6%. A punctuation of 10 or higher had a positive predictive value of 27.9%. Conclusion:We present a clinical prediction score that allowed to stratify critically ill COVID-19 patients according to the risk for developing CAPA. This CAPA score would allow to target preventive measures. Further evaluation of the score, as well as the utility of these targeted preventive measures, is needed.
Objectives : To analyze the mortality and characteristics of the deceased patients with COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Methods : Analysis of all admissions due to COVID-19 disease in a tertiary hospital in Madrid. Three waves were considered: March to June 2020, July to November 2020 and December 2020 to April 2021. Results : A total of 3,676 patients were identified. Among inpatients, no differences regarding age, sex, admission length or mortality were found between the three waves (p>0.05). The overall mortality rate was 12.9%. Among deceased patients, median age was 82 and the median Charlson co-morbidity index was 6. Considering the main predictors for mortality by COVID-19 (age, sex and concomitant comorbidities), only patients with previous lung disease were more prevalent in the third period (p <0.01). Finally, among deceased patients, higher intensive care unit admission rates, a lower rate of patients coming from nursing homes, and with dementia were noted in the third period (p<0.05). Conclusion : One year after the onset of the pandemic, the mortality rate of hospitalized patients and the profile of non-survivors has not changed significantly. Advanced age and multiple pathologies are uniform characteristics of non-survivors in the absence of the benefit of the vaccines.
Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a well-known factor associated with invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised hosts. However, its association with COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has not been described. We aimed to examine the possible link between CMV replication and CAPA occurrence. Methods: A single-center, retrospective case–control study was conducted. A case was defined as a patient diagnosed with CAPA according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria. Two controls were selected for each case among critically ill COVID-19 patients. Results: In total, 24 CAPA cases were included, comprising 14 possible CAPA and 10 probable CAPA. Additionally, 48 matched controls were selected. CMV replication was detected more frequently in CAPA than in controls (75.0% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.002). Probable CMV end-organ disease was more prevalent in CAPA (20.8% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.037). After adjusting for possible confounding factors, CMV replication persisted strongly associated with CAPA (OR 8.28 95% CI 1.90–36.13, p = 0.005). Among 11 CAPA cases with CMV PCR available prior to CAPA, in 9 (81.8%) cases, CMV replication was observed prior to CAPA diagnosis. Conclusion: Among critically ill COVID-19 patients, CMV replication was associated with CAPA and could potentially be considered a harbinger of CAPA. Further studies are needed to confirm this association.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.