Objectives To analyse the characteristics and predictors of death in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Spain. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed of the first consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 confirmed by real-time PCR assay in 127 Spanish centres until 17 March 2020. The follow-up censoring date was 17 April 2020. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment and complications data. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with death. Results Of the 4035 patients, male subjects accounted for 2433 (61.0%) of 3987, the median age was 70 years and 2539 (73.8%) of 3439 had one or more comorbidity. The most common symptoms were a history of fever, cough, malaise and dyspnoea. During hospitalization, 1255 (31.5%) of 3979 patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 736 (18.5%) of 3988 were admitted to intensive care units and 619 (15.5%) of 3992 underwent mechanical ventilation. Virus- or host-targeted medications included lopinavir/ritonavir (2820/4005, 70.4%), hydroxychloroquine (2618/3995, 65.5%), interferon beta (1153/3950, 29.2%), corticosteroids (1109/3965, 28.0%) and tocilizumab (373/3951, 9.4%). Overall, 1131 (28%) of 4035 patients died. Mortality increased with age (85.6% occurring in older than 65 years). Seventeen factors were independently associated with an increased hazard of death, the strongest among them including advanced age, liver cirrhosis, low age-adjusted oxygen saturation, higher concentrations of C-reactive protein and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. Conclusions Our findings provide comprehensive information about characteristics and complications of severe COVID-19, and may help clinicians identify patients at a higher risk of death.

Given the need to understand both the negative and positive psychological consequences of the current global COVID-19 pandemic (Brewin et al.

In the midst of the COVID–19 epidemic, Spain was one of the countries with the highest number of infections and a high mortality rate. The threat of the virus and consequences of the pandemic have a discernible impact on the mental health of citizens. This study aims to (a) evaluate the levels of anxiety, depression and well-being in a large Spanish sample during the confinement, (b) identify potential predictor variables associated to experiencing both clinical levels of distress and well-being in a sample of 2,122 Spanish people. By using descriptive analyses and logistic regression results revealed high rates of depression, anxiety and well-being. Specifically, our findings revealed that high levels of anxiety about COVID–19, increased substance use and loneliness as the strongest predictors of distress, while gross annual incomes and loneliness were strongest predictors of well-being. Finding of the present study provide a better insight about psychological adjustment to a pandemic and allows us to identify which population groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of distress and which factors contribute to greater well-being, which could help in the treatments and prevention in similar stressful and traumatic situations.

Background The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) are self-report measures of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The primary aim of this study was to test for differential item functioning (DIF) on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 items based on age, sex (males and females), and country. Method Data from nationally representative surveys in UK, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (combined N = 6,054) were used to fit confirmatory factor analytic and multiple-indictor multiple-causes models. Results Spain and Italy had higher latent variable means than the UK and Ireland for both anxiety and depression, but there was no evidence for differential items functioning. Conclusions The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were found to be unidimensional, reliable, and largely free of DIF in data from four large nationally representative samples of the general population in the UK, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

Background : It has been suggested that resilience is best conceptualized as healthy and stable functioning in the face of a potentially traumatic event. However, most research on this field has focused on self-reported resilience, and other patterns of response when facing adversity, in cross-sectional designs. Objective : Alternatively, we aimed to study changing patterns of psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population, based on patterns of symptoms, and factors contributing to those patterns. Method : A national representative sample of Spain (N = 1,628) responded to an internet-based survey at two assessment points, separated by 1 month (April and May 2020), during the official national confinement stage. Based upon whether participants exhibited absence/presence of distress (i.e., significant trauma-related, depression, or anxiety symptoms) at one or two of the assessment times, patterns of psychological responses were defined by categorizing individuals into one of the four categories: Resilience, Delayed distress, Recovered, and Sustained distress. Results : Analyses of the levels of disturbance associated with the symptoms provided support to that four-fold distinction of patterns of responses. Furthermore, resilience responses were the most common psychological response to the pandemic. Multinomial regression analyses revealed that the main variables increasing the probability of resilience to COVID-19 were being male, older, having no history of mental health difficulties, higher levels of psychological well-being and high identification with all humanity. Also, having low scores in several variables (i.e., anxiety and economic threat due to COVID-19, substance use during the confinement, intolerance to uncertainty, death anxiety, loneliness, and suspiciousness) was a significant predictor of a resilient response to COVID-19. Conclusion : Our findings are consistent with previous literature that conceptualizes resilience as a dynamic process. The clinical implications of significant predictors of the resilience and the rest of psychological patterns of response are discussed.