Background: Immunomodulatory drugs have been used in patients with severe COVID-19. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different strategies, based either on an interleukin-1 inhibitor, anakinra, or on a JAK inhibitor, such as baricitinib, on the survival of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: Individuals admitted to two hospitals because of COVID-19 were included if they fulfilled the clinical, radiological, and laboratory criteria for moderate-to-severe disease. Patients were classified according to the first immunomodulatory drug prescribed: anakinra or baricitinib. All subjects were concomitantly treated with corticosteroids, in addition to standard care. The main outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. Statistical analysis included propensity score matching and Cox regression model. Results: The study subjects included 125 and 217 individuals in the anakinra and baricitinib groups, respectively. IMV was required in 13 (10.4%) and 10 (4.6%) patients, respectively (p = 0.039). During this period, 22 (17.6%) and 36 (16.6%) individuals died in both groups (p = 0.811). Older age, low functional status, high comorbidity, need for IMV, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and use of a high flow of oxygen at initially were found to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. No differences according to the immunomodulatory therapy used were observed. For most of the deceased individuals, early interruption of anakinra or baricitinib had occurred at the time of their admission to the intensive care unit. Conclusions: Similar mortality is observed in patients treated with anakinra or baricitinib plus corticosteroids.

Purpose Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, frequent and disabling condition but with a modifiable course and a large potential for improving. The aim of this study was to validate the two available clinical prediction rules for mortality at one year in patients with primo-hospitalization for decompensated HF: PREDICE and AHEAD. The secondary aim was to evaluate in our setting the changes in the clinical pattern of HF in the last decade in patients hospitalized for a first episode of the disease. Patients and methods A prospective multicenter cohort study, which included 180 patients hospitalized with “de novo” HF was conducted to validate the PREDICE score. Calibration and discrimination measurements were calculated for the PREDICE model and the PREDICE score (using the validation cohort of the PREDICE) and the AHEAD score (using both the development and the validation cohort of the PREDICE). Results For the PREDICE models, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.79) and the calibration slope 0.65 (95% CI: 0.21–1.20). For the PREDICE score AUC was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.47–0.71) and slope 0.42 (95% CI: −0.20–1.17). For the AHEAD score the AUC was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62–0.73) and slope 1.38 (95% CI: 0.62–0.73) when used the development cohort of PREDICE and the AUC was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.49–0.67), and slope 0.68 (95% CI: −0.06 to 1.47) when used its validation cohort. Conclusion The present study shows that the two risk scores available for patients with primo-hospitalization for decompensated HF (PREDICE and AHEAD) are not currently valid for predicting mortality at one-year. In our setting the clinical spectrum of hospitalized patients with new-onset HF has been modified over time. The study underscores the need to validate the prognostic models before clinical implementation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract