Dataset Information

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.

SUBMITTER: Monserrat Villatoro J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8780256 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Monserrat Villatoro Jaime J Mejía-Abril Gina G Díaz García Lucía L Zubiaur Pablo P Jiménez González María M Fernandez Jimenez Guillermo G Cancio Inés I Arribas José Ramón JR Suarez Fernández Carmen C Mingorance Jesús J García Rodríguez Julio J Villagrasa Ferrer José Ramón JR Carcas Antonio J AJ Frías Jesús J Abad-Santos Francisco F Borobia Alberto M AM Ramírez Elena E On Behalf Of The Covid Hulp Working Group And Other Collaborators From Hospital Universitario de la Princesa

Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) 20220108 1

Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all pati ...[more]

PMID: 35056135

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThrombosis is a unique complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are detected in COVID-19 patients, their clinical significance remains elusive. We evaluated the prevalence of aPL and serum concentrations of beta-2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI), a major self-antigen for aPL, in Japanese COVID-19 patients with and without thrombosis.MethodsThis retrospective single-center nested case-control study included 594 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2021. Thrombotic complications were collected from medical records. Propensity score-matching method (PSM) (1:2 matching including age, sex, severity on admission, and prior history of thrombosis) was performed to compare the prevalence and titer of aPL (anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM/IgA, and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibody (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM) and serum β2GPI concentration. In addition, PSM (1:1 matching including age and sex) was performed to compare the serum β2GPI concentration between COVID-19 patients and healthy donors.ResultsAmong the patients, 31 patients with thrombosis and 62 patients without were compared. The prevalence of any aPLs was indifferent regardless of the thrombosis (41.9% in those with thrombosis vs. 38.7% in those without, p =0.82). The positive rates of individual aPL were as follows: anti-CL IgG (9.7% vs. 1.6%, p =0.11)/IgM (0% vs. 3.2%, p =0.55), anti-β2GP1 IgG (22.6% vs. 9.7%, p =0.12)/IgA (9.7% vs. 9.7%, p =1.0)/IgM (0% vs. 0%, p =1.0), and anti-PS/PT IgG (0% vs. 1.6%, p =1.0)/IgM (12.9% vs. 21.0%, p =0.41), respectively. The aPL titers were also similar regardless of thrombosis. The levels of β2GPI in COVID-19 patients were lower than those in the healthy donors.ConclusionAlthough aPLs were frequently detected in Japanese COVID-19 patients, their prevalence and titer were irrelevant to thrombotic complications. While COVID-19 patients have lower levels of serum β2GPI than healthy blood donors, β2GPI levels were indifferent regardless of thrombosis. Although most of the titers were below cut-offs, positive correlations were observed among aPLs, suggesting that the immune reactions against aPL antigens were induced by COVID-19. We should focus on the long-term thromboembolic risk and the development of APS in the aPL-positive patients with high titer or multiple aPLs.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic process is a key element of medicine but it is complex and prone to errors. Infectious diseases are one of the three categories of diseases in which diagnostic errors can be most harmful to patients. In this study we aimed to estimate the effect of initial misdiagnosis of the source of infection in patients with bacteraemia on 14 day mortality using propensity score methods to adjust for confounding.MethodsData from a previously described longitudinal cohort of patients diagnosed with monobacterial bloodstream infection (BSI) at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) between 2013 and 2015 were used. Propensity score matching and inversed probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were applied to correct for confounding. The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), which in this study was the average effect of initial misdiagnosis on the misdiagnosed (AEMM), was estimated. Methodological issues that were encountered when applying propensity score methods were addressed by performing additional sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analyses consisted of varying caliper in propensity score matching and using different truncated weights in inversed probability of treatment weighting.ResultsData of 887 patients were included in the study. Propensity scores ranged between 0.015 and 0.999 and 80 patients (9.9%) had a propensity score > 0.95. In the matched analyses, 35 of the 171 misdiagnosed patients died within 14 days (20.5%), versus 10 of the 171 correctly diagnosed patients (5.8%), yielding a difference of 14.6% (7.6%; 21.6%). In the total group of patients, the observed percentage of patients with an incorrect initial diagnosis that died within 14 days was 19.8% while propensity score reweighting estimated that their probability of dying would have been 6.5%, if they had been correctly diagnosed (difference 13.3% (95% CI 6.9%;19.6%)). After adjustment for all variables that showed disbalance in the propensity score a difference of 13.7% (7.4%; 19.9%) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. However, performing weighted analyses without truncation yielded unstable results.ConclusionThus, we observed a substantial increase of 14 day mortality in initially misdiagnosed patients. Furthermore, several patients received propensity scores extremely close to one and were almost sure to be initially misdiagnosed.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.Patients and methodsA secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model.ResultsThe mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes.ConclusionRemdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo elucidate the impact of lymphopenia on critical COVID-19 patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study across five hospitals in Portugal and Brazil from 2020 to 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their lymphocyte counts within 48 hours of intensive care unit admission: the Lymphopenia Group (lymphocyte serum count < 1 × 109/L) and the Nonlymphopenia Group. Multivariate logistic regression, propensity score matching, Kaplan‒Meier survival curve analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used.ResultsA total of 912 patients were enrolled, with 191 (20.9%) in the Nonlymphopenia Group and 721 (79.1%) in the Lymphopenia Group. Lymphopenia patients displayed significantly elevated disease severity indices, including Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 scores, at intensive care unit admission (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, they presented heightened requirements for vasopressor support (p = 0.045) and prolonged intensive care unit and in-hospital stays (both p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis after propensity score matching revealed a significant contribution of lymphopenia to mortality, with an odds ratio of 1,621 (95%CI: 1,275 - 2,048; p < 0.001). Interaction models revealed an increase of 8% in mortality for each decade of longevity in patients with concomitant lymphopenia. In the subanalysis utilizing three-group stratification, the Severe Lymphopenia Group had the highest mortality rate, not only in direct comparisons but also in Kaplan‒Meier survival analysis (log-rank test p = 0.0048).ConclusionLymphopenia in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased disease severity and an increased risk of mortality, underscoring the need for prompt support for critically ill high-risk patients. These findings offer important insights into improving patient care strategies for COVID-19 patients.

Project description:We employed pandemic treatment strategies that we developed at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and it was not clear whether any adverse results were associated with our strategies. Therefore, we carried out a retrospective study to compare our pandemic treatment strategies with prepandemic protocols to determine whether the strategies used during the high-risk period of COVID-19 were appropriate. The observation period was September 2019 to February 2020. Patients hospitalized from December 2019 to February 2020 were included as an experimental group, and individuals hospitalized from September 2019 to November 2019 were included as a control group. All non-small cell lung cancer patients hospitalized during the observation period were included except for pediatric and obstetric patients, patients younger than 18 years old, and patients admitted only for routine follow-up examinations. Treatment strategies were evaluated based on the prognosis of the different treatment methods, including surgical and nonsurgical treatments and discontinuation of therapy. Survival curves were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis of risk factors for progress-free survival. Propensity score matching was used for clinical characteristics to adjust for selection bias. Therapy discontinuation in the experimental group was significantly higher than in the control group (P < .001). The differences in cancer progression and the number of deaths between the 2 groups were not significant (P = .38 and .13, respectively). For late-stage patients, there were significant differences in nonsurgical treatment and discontinued therapy (P < .001 and < .001, respectively) between the 2 groups, while the cancer progression and death toll differences were not significant (P = .20 and .20, respectively). For early-stage patients, the differences in surgical treatment, discontinued therapy, cancer progression, and death toll were not significant (P = .24, 0.24, 0.61, and 0.49, respectively) between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that temporary discontinuation of therapy did not predict poor progress-free survival independently (hazard ratio = 1.007, 95% confidence interval: 0.653-1.552, P = .98). For patients in geographical regions with a high risk for COVID-19 infections, temporarily suspending treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients is not likely to significantly impact their prognosis if they can return to treatment within 3 months of discontinuation.

Dataset Information

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Publications

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets