Search

Background: It is still unclear if patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have different rate, typology, and impact of thrombosis on survival., Methods: In this multicenter observational cohort study, 1,138 patients, hospitalized for CAP ( n  = 559) or COVID-19 ( n  = 579) from seven clinical centers in Italy, were included in the study. Consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19-related pneumonia, with or without mechanical ventilation, hospitalized from March 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020, were enrolled. COVID-19 was diagnosed based on the World Health Organization interim guidance. Patients were followed-up until discharge or in-hospital death, registering the occurrence of thrombotic events including ischemic/embolic events., Results: During the in-hospital stay, 11.4% of CAP and 15.5% of COVID-19 patients experienced thrombotic events ( p  = 0.046). In CAP patients all the events were arterial thromboses, while in COVID-19 patients 8.3% were venous and 7.2% arterial thromboses.During the in-hospital follow-up, 3% of CAP patients and 17% of COVID-19 patients died ( p  < 0.001). The highest mortality rate was found among COVID-19 patients with thrombotic events (47.6 vs. 13.4% in thrombotic-event-free patients; p  < 0.001). In CAP, 13.8% of patients experiencing thrombotic events died versus 1.8% of thrombotic event-free ones ( p  < 0.001). A multivariable Cox-regression analysis confirmed a higher risk of death in COVID-19 patients with thrombotic events (hazard ratio: 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-3.3; p  < 0.001)., Conclusion: Compared with CAP, COVID-19 is characterized by a higher burden of thrombotic events, different thrombosis typology and higher risk of thrombosis-related in-hospital mortality., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is a bedside prognostic tool for patients with suspected infection outside the intensive care unit (ICU), which is particularly useful when laboratory analyses are not readily available. However, its performance in potentially septic patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) needs to be examined further, especially in relation to early outcomes affecting acute management., Objective: First, to compare the performance of qSOFA and CURB-65 in the prediction of mortality in the emergency department in patients presenting with CAP. Second, to study patients who required critical care support (CCS) and ICU admission., Methods: Between January and December 2017, a 1-year retrospective observational study was carried out of adult (≥18 years old) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of our hospital (Rome, Italy) with CAP. The accuracy of qSOFA, qSOFA-65 and CURB-65 was compared in predicting mortality in the ED, CCS requirement and ICU admission. The concordance among scores ≥2 was then assessed for 30-day estimated mortality prediction., Results: 505 patients with CAP were enrolled. Median age was 71.0 years and mortality rate in the ED was 4.7%. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of qSOFA-65, CURB-65 and qSOFA in predicting mortality rate in the ED were 0.949 (95% CI 0.873 to 0.976), 0.923 (0.867 to 0.980) and 0.909 (0.847 to 0.971), respectively. The likelihood ratio of a patient having a qSOFA score ≥2 points was higher than for qSOFA-65 or CURB-65 (11 vs 7 vs 6.7). The AUCs of qSOFA, qSOFA-65 and CURB-65 in predicting CCS requirement were 0.862 (95% CI 0.802 to 0.923), 0.824 (0.758 to 0.890) and 0.821 (0.754 to 0.888), respectively. The AUCs of qSOFA-65, qSOFA and CURB-65 in predicting ICU admission were 0.593 (95% CI 0.511 to 0.676), 0.585 (0.503 to 0.667) and 0.570 (0.488 to 0.653), respectively. The concordance between qSOFA-65 and CURB-65 in 30-day estimated mortality prediction was 93%., Conclusion: qSOFA is a valuable score for predicting mortality in the ED and for the prompt identification of patients with CAP requiring CCS. qSOFA-65 may further improve the performance of this useful score, showing also good concordance with CURB-65 in 30-day estimated mortality prediction., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Teicoplanin has a potential antiviral activity expressed against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and was suggested as a complementary option to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients. In this multicentric, retrospective, observational research the aim was to evaluate the impact of teicoplanin on the course of COVID‐19 in critically ill patients. Fifty‐five patients with severe COVID‐19, hospitalized in the intensive care units (ICUs) and treated with best available therapy were retrospectively analysed. Among them 34 patients were also treated with teicoplanin (Tei‐COVID group), while 21 without teicoplanin (control group). Crude in‐hospital Day‐30 mortality was lower in Tei‐COVID group (35.2%) than in control group (42.8%), however not reaching statistical significance (p =.654). No statistically significant differences in length of stay in the ICU were observed between Tei‐COVID group and control group (p =.248). On Day 14 from the ICU hospitalization, viral clearance was achieved in 64.7% patients of Tei‐COVID group and 57.1% of control group, without statistical difference. Serum C‐reactive protein level was significantly reduced in Tei‐COVID group compared to control group, but not other biochemical parameters. Finally, Gram‐positive were the causative pathogens for 25% of BSIs in Tei‐COVID group and for 70.6% in controls. No side effects related to teicoplanin use were observed. Despite several limitations require further research, in this study the use of teicoplanin is not associated with a significant improvement in outcomes analysed. The antiviral activity of teicoplanin against SARS‐CoV‐2, previously documented, is probably more effective at early clinical stages. Highlights: ‐Evidence from the scientific literature highlighted that a number of glycopeptide antibiotics have a potential antiviral activity expressed against Coronaviruses. Based on the aforementioned, teicoplanin was suggested as an alternative complementary option to treat also SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients‐Teicoplanin also remain a possible choice for treatment of Staphylococcus aureussuperinfection, a major complication of respiratory viral infections and in COVID related pneumonia.‐This is the first multicentric, retrospective, observational analysis of a real‐life cohort of critically ill patients with COVID‐19 complementary treated with teicoplanin, used with a double purpose: as empiric antibiotic treatment and as antiviral agent (Tei‐COVID group). A control group untreated with teicoplanin was also enrolled‐The results of this study showed that teicoplanin does not impact on the crude mortality in critically ill COVID‐19 patients: the primary outcome of the study failed due to lack of statistical significance despite mortality being lower in the Tei‐COVID group than in the control group (35.2% vs. 42.8%)‐On Day 14 from the ICU hospitalization, viral clearance was achieved in 64.7% patients of Tei‐COVID group and 57.1% of control group, without statistical difference.‐Serum C‐reactive protein level was significantly reduced in Tei‐COVID group compared to control group. No statistically significant differences were observed for white blood cells and lymphocytes counts, kidney and liver function, PO2/FiO2 and weaning from mechanical ventilation between the two groups at day 8.‐ A possible explanation for these findings is that the antiviral activity of a drug is considered more effective at the onset of disease when viral replication and direct viral damage are still significant. As the disease progresses (the study enrolled critically ill patients), the damage is progressively sustained by pathogenic mechanisms not directly correlated with the presence of the virus, thus reducing the potential therapeutic role of antivirals at this stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]