Background Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. Methods We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine’s registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. Results A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.

No abstract

Aim The present study aimed both to gain knowledge on the distinctive clinical characteristics of older adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), in comparison with those of younger patients, and to identify risk factors for mortality. Methods A retrospective observational study was carried out of patients consecutively admitted to Doctor Peset University Hospital, Valencia (Spain) for COVID‐19 from 11 March to 28 April 2020. Every case was diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or by serology test to detect antibodies. Demographic details, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings on admission and complications of each case were collected from electronic medical records. Results The dataset comprised 340 patients. Of them, 152 (44.6%) were aged >70 years. Comorbidities were more common in the older groups. Confusion was more common in older adults, whereas typical symptoms of COVID‐19, such as fever, cough and myalgia, were less common. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air, neutrophilia, D‐dimer >0.5 μg/mL, creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, lactate dehydrogenase ≥250 U/L and elevation of creatine kinase were higher in the older adult groups. Complications during hospitalization, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (53.3% vs 33.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (11.8% vs 5.3%; P = 0.030) and mortality (28.9% vs 6.5%; P < 0.001) were more common in patients aged >70 years. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air on admission was a predictor of mortality (odds ratio 11.65, 95% confidence interval 3.26–41.66, P < 0.001) in patients aged >70 years. Conclusions Older adults with COVID‐19 have more atypical presentation, more complications and higher mortality. Oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air on admission is a predictive factor of death. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; ••: ••–•• .

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. Inhospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

No abstract

Objectives: A decrease in blood cell counts, especially lymphocytes and eosinophils, has been described in patients with serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but there is no knowledge of their potential role of the recovery in these patients’ prognosis. This article aims to analyse the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. Design: This work was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 9644 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 from the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine’s SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Setting: This study examined patients hospitalised in 147 hospitals throughout Spain. Participants: This work analysed 9644 patients (57.12% male) out of a cohort of 12,826 patients ≥18 years of age hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry as of 29 May 2020. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measure of this work is the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. Univariate analysis was performed to determine possible predictors of death, and then multivariate analysis was carried out to control for potential confounders. Results: An increase in the eosinophil count on the seventh day of hospitalisation was associated with a better prognosis, including lower mortality rates (5.2% vs. 22.6% in non-recoverers, OR 0.234; 95% CI, 0.154 to 0.354) and lower complication rates, especially regarding the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.000) and ICU admission (5.4% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.000). Lymphocyte recovery was found to have no effect on prognosis. Treatment with inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids was not found to be a confounding factor. Conclusion: Eosinophil recovery in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalisation had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality and a milder course.

SummaryBackground: Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli are

Introduction Previous studies have described some risk factors for multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the clinical impact of MDR bacteria on older hospitalized patients with community-acquired UTI has not been broadly analyzed. We conducted a study in older adults with community-acquired UTI in order to identify risk factors for MDR bacteria and to know their clinical impact. Methods Cohort prospective observational study of patients of 65 years or older, consecutively admitted to a university hospital, diagnosed with community-acquired UTI. We compared epidemiological and clinical variables and outcomes, from UTI due to MDR and non-MDR bacteria. Independent risk factors for MDR bacteria were analyzed using logistic regression. Results 348 patients were included, 41.4% of them with UTI due to MDR bacteria. Median age was 81 years. Hospital mortality was 8.6%, with no difference between the MDR and non-MDR bacteria groups. Median length of stay was 5 [4–8] days, with a longer stay in the MDR group (6 [4–8] vs. 5 [4–7] days, p = 0.029). Inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy (IEAT) was 23.3%, with statistically significant differences between groups (33.3% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.001). Healthcare-associated UTI variables, in particular previous antimicrobial therapy and residence in a nursing home, were found to be independent risk factors for MDR bacteria. Conclusions The clinical impact of MDR bacteria was moderate. MDR bacteria cases had higher IEAT and longer hospital stay, although mortality was not higher. Previous antimicrobial therapy and residence in a nursing home were independent risk factors for MDR bacteria.