Dataset Information

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Real-world data on the effectiveness of boosters against COVID-19, especially as new variants continue to emerge, is limited. Our objective was to assess demographic, clinical, and outcome variables of patients requiring hospitalization for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing fully vaccinated and boosted (FV&B), fully vaccinated (FV), and unvaccinated (UV) patients.

Methods

This multicenter observational cohort analysis compared demographic, clinical, and outcome variables in FV&B, FV, and UV adults hospitalized for COVID-19. Partially vaccinated (PV) and individuals still hospitalized beyond the designated follow-up date of February 1, 2022 were excluded. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included characteristics and outcomes in subpopulations of intensive care and geriatric (age >65) patients.

Findings

Between August 12th, 2021 and January 20th, 2022, 8232 patient encounters had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 and required inpatient treatment. Of the 8232 encounters requiring hospitalization, 448 (5.8%) were FV&B, 2257 (29.2%) were FV, and 5023 (65.0%) were UV; 357 PV and 147 still hospitalized were excluded. The median age of FV&B cohort was 73 (IQR 62, 82) compared to 70 (IQR 59, 80) for FV and 59 (IQR 45, 71) for UV (0.001). Most patients were female in both the FB&V and UV groups with 51.1% and 51.8%, respectively, while the FV group had a majority of males (51.3%). The median Elixhauser weighted score was 12 (IQR 3, 22) for FV&B, 10 (IQR 2, 20) for FV, and 9 (IQR 0, 17) for UV groups (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 7.1% in the FV&B, 10.3% in the FV group, and 12.8% in the UV group (p < 0.001). The FV&B group had lower in-hospital mortality than both FV and UV groups (p = 0.045 and p = 0.001, respectively). The FV group had lower in-hospital mortality than the UV group (p = 0.004).

Interpretation

Fully vaccinated and boosted patients requiring hospital-level care for breakthrough COVID-19 have lower in-hospital mortality than fully vaccinated and unvaccinated patients despite being older and higher risk at baseline. Boosters offer added protection beyond full vaccination in preventing death. As COVID-19 continues to spread, larger expansive trials are needed to further identify risk factors for severe outcomes among the FV&B population.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

SUBMITTER: Mielke N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8926847 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis.

Mielke Nicholas N Johnson Steven S Bahl Amit A

Lancet regional health. Americas 20220317

<h4>Background</h4>Real-world data on the effectiveness of boosters against COVID-19, especially as new variants continue to emerge, is limited. Our objective was to assess demographic, clinical, and outcome variables of patients requiring hospitalization for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing fully vaccinated and boosted (FV&B), fully vaccinated (FV), and unvaccinated (UV) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This multicenter observational cohort analysis compared demographic, clinical, and outcome vari ...[more]

PMID: 35313615

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is important to know if mortality among hospitalised COVID-19 patients has changed as the pandemic has progressed. The aim of this study was to describe the dynamics over time of mortality among patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in Sweden, using nationwide data compiled by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.MethodsObservational cohort study where all patients hospitalised in Sweden between March 1 and September 30, 2020, with SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity 14 days before to 5 days after admission and a discharge code for COVID-19 were included. Outcome was 60-day all-cause mortality. Patients were categorised according to month of hospital admission. Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk of death by month of admission, adjusting for, age, sex, comorbidities, care dependency, country of birth, healthcare region, and Simplified Acute Physiology, version 3 (patients in intensive care units; ICU).FindingsA total of 17,140 patients were included, of which 2943 died within 60 days of admission. The overall 60-day mortality was thus 17·2% (95% CI, 16·6%-17·7%), and it decreased from 24·7% (95% CI, 23·0%-26·5%) in March to 10·4% (95% CI, 8·9%-12·1%) post-wave (July-September). Adjusted relative risk (RR) of death was 0·46 (95% CI, 0·39-0·54) post-wave, using March as reference. Corresponding RR for patients not admitted to ICU and those admitted to ICU were 0·49 (95% CI, 0·42-0·59) and 0·49 (95% CI, 0·33-0·72), respectively. The proportion of patients admitted to ICU decreased from 19·4% (95% CI, 17·9%-21·1%) in the March cohort to 8·9% (95% CI, 7·5%-10·6%) post-wave.InterpretationThere was a gradual decline in mortality during the spring of 2020 in Swedish hospitalised COVID-19 patients, independent of baseline patient characteristics. Future research is needed to explain the reasons for this decline. The changing COVID-19 mortality should be taken into account when management and results of studies from the first pandemic wave are evaluated.FundingThis study was funded by Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare.

Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited.MethodsWe examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO.ResultsA total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70-0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82-0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57-0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80-0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58-0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68-0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68-0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69-0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70-0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days.ConclusionsRDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe.MethodsThis analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1-3), mildly frail (CFS4-5), or frail (CFS6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities).FindingsBetween March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018).InterpretationThe results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution.FundingLOEY Foundation.

Dataset Information

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets