(1) Background: The inflammation or cytokine storm that accompanies COVID-19 marks the prognosis. This study aimed to identify three risk categories based on inflammatory parameters on admission. (2) Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, collected and followed-up from 1 March to 31 July 2020, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The three categories of low, intermediate, and high risk were determined by taking into consideration the terciles of the total lymphocyte count and the values of C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, and D-dimer taken at the time of admission. (3) Results: A total of 17,122 patients were included in the study. The high-risk group was older (57.9 vs. 64.2 vs. 70.4 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly male (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 60.1%; p < 0.001). They had a higher degree of dependence in daily tasks prior to admission (moderate-severe dependency in 10.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 17%; p < 0.001), arterial hypertension (36.9% vs. 45.2% vs. 52.8%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (28.4% vs. 37% vs. 40.6%; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (11.9% vs. 17.1% vs. 20.5%; p < 0.001), ischemic heart disease (3.7% vs. 6.5% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.001), heart failure (3.4% vs. 5.2% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.001), liver disease (1.1% vs. 3% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.002), chronic renal failure (2.3% vs. 3.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001), cancer (6.5% vs. 7.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.7% vs. 5.4% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001). They presented more frequently with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting. These patients more frequently required high flow nasal cannula (3.1% vs. 4.4% vs. 9.7%; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (0.9% vs. 3% vs. 6.3%; p < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (0.6% vs. 2.7% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.001), and ICU admission (0.9% vs. 3.6% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), and had a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 6.2% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). The three risk categories proved to be an independent risk factor in multivariate analyses. (4) Conclusion: The present study identifies three risk categories for the requirement of high flow nasal cannula, mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality based on lymphopenia and inflammatory parameters.

Background Valproic acid (VPA) has shown beneficial effects in vitro against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but no study has analyzed its efficacy in the clinical setting. Methods This multicenter, retrospective study included 165 adult patients receiving VPA at the time of admission to hospital, and 330 controls matched for sex, age and date of admission. A number of clinical, outcome and laboratory parameters were recorded to evaluate differences between the two groups. Four major clinical endpoints were considered: development of lung infiltrates, in-hospital respiratory worsening, ICU admissions and death. Results VPA-treated patients had higher lymphocyte (P<0.0001) and monocyte (P = 0.0002) counts, and lower levels of diverse inflammatory parameters, including a composite biochemical severity score (P = 0.016). VPA patients had shorter duration of symptoms (P<0.0001), were more commonly asymptomatic (P = 0.016), and developed less commonly lung infiltrates (65.8%/88.2%, P<0.0001), respiratory worsening (20.6%/30.6%, P = 0.019) and ICU admissions (6.1%/13.0%, P = 0.018). There was no difference in survival (84.8%/88.8%, P = 0.2), although death was more commonly related to non-COVID-19 causes in the VPA group (36.0%/10.8%, P = 0.017). The cumulative hazard for developing adverse clinical endpoints was higher in controls than in the VPA group for infiltrates (P<0.0001), respiratory worsening (P<0.0001), and ICU admissions (P = 0.001), but not for death (0.6). Multivariate analysis revealed that VPA treatment was independently protective for the development of the first three clinical endpoints (P = 0.0002, P = 0.03, and P = 0.025, respectively), but not for death (P = 0.2). Conclusions VPA-treated patients seem to develop less serious COVID-19 than control patients, according to diverse clinical endpoints and laboratory markers.

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common vasculitis among elderly people. The clinical spectrum of the disease is heterogeneous, with a classic/cranial phenotype, and another extracranial or large vessel phenotype as the two more characteristic patterns. Permanent visual loss is the main short-term complication. Glucocorticoids (GC) remain the cornerstone of treatment. However, the percentage of relapses with GC alone is high, and the rate of adverse events affects more than 80% of patients, so it is necessary to have alternative therapeutic options, especially in patients with worse prognostic factors or high comorbidity. MTX is the only DMARD that has shown to reduce the cumulative dose of GC, while tocilizumab is the first biologic agent approved due to its ability to decrease the relapse rate and lower the cumulative GC doses. However, apart from the IL-6 pathway, there are other pro-inflammatory cytokines and growth factors involved in the typical intima hyperplasia and vascular remodeling of GCA. Among them, the more promising targets in GCA treatment are the IL12/IL23 axis antagonists, IL17 inhibitors, modulators of T lymphocytes, and inhibitors of either the JAK/STAT pathway, the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, or the endothelin, all of which are updated in this review.

Our main aim was to describe the effect on the severity of ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker) during COVID-19 hospitalization. A retrospective, observational, multicenter study evaluating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with ACEI/ARB. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite outcome of prognosis (IMV (invasive mechanical ventilation), NIMV (non-invasive mechanical ventilation), ICU admission (intensive care unit), and/or all-cause mortality). We evaluated both outcomes in patients whose treatment with ACEI/ARB was continued or withdrawn. Between February and June 2020, 11,205 patients were included, mean age 67 years (SD = 16.3) and 43.1% female; 2162 patients received ACEI/ARB treatment. ACEI/ARB treatment showed lower all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001). Hypertensive patients in the ACEI/ARB group had better results in IMV, ICU admission, and the composite outcome of prognosis (p < 0.0001 for all). No differences were found in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. Patients previously treated with ACEI/ARB continuing treatment during hospitalization had a lower incidence of the composite outcome of prognosis than those whose treatment was withdrawn (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.63–0.76). ARB was associated with better survival than ACEI (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62–0.96). ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with protection on mortality. The benefits were greater in hypertensive, those who continued treatment, and those taking ARB.

Background Early Kinetics of SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load (VL) in plasma determined by quantitative RT‐PCR was evaluated as a predictor of poor clinical outcome in a prospective study and assessed in a retrospective validation cohort. Methods Prospective observational single‐centre study including consecutive adult patients hospitalised with COVID‐19 between November 2020 and January 2021. Serial plasma samples were obtained until discharge. Quantitative RT‐PCR was performed to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 VL. The main outcomes were in‐hospital mortality, admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and their combination (Poor Outcome). Relevant Viremia (RV), established in the prospective study, was assessed in a retrospective cohort including hospitalised COVID‐19 patients from April 2021‐May 2022, in which plasma samples were collected according to clinical criteria. Results Prospective cohort: 57 patients were included. RV was defined as at least a two‐fold increase in VL within ≤2 days or a VL>300 copies/mL, in the first week. Patients with RV (N=14; 24.6%) were more likely to die than those without RV (35.7% vs 0%), needed ICU admission (57% vs 0%) or had Poor Outcome (71.4% vs 0%), (p<0.001 for the three variables) Retrospective cohort: 326 patients were included, 18.7% presented RV. Patients with RV compared with patients without RV had higher rates of ICU‐admission [OR 5.6 (95%CI,2.1‐15.1); p=0.001], mortality [OR 13.5 (95%CI,6.3‐28.7); p<0.0001] and Poor Outcome [OR 11.2 (95%CI,5.8‐22); p<0.0001] Conclusion Relevant SARS‐CoV‐2 viremia in the first week of hospitalisation was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality, ICU admission, and Poor Outcome. Findings observed in the prospective cohort were confirmed in a larger validation cohort. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.