Search

Background: Admission eosinopenia (<100 cells/μL) is associated with poor clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, the effects of eosinophil recovery (defined as reaching ≥50 eosinophils/μL) during hospitalization on COVID-19 outcomes have been inconsistent., Methods: The study included 1,831 patients admitted to UCLA hospitals between February 2020 and February 2021 with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Using competing risk regression and modeling eosinophil recovery as a time-dependent covariate, we evaluated the longitudinal relationship between eosinophil recovery and in-hospital outcomes including ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. All analyses were adjusted for covariates including age, BMI, tobacco smoke exposure, comorbidities known to be risk factors for COVID-19 mortality, and treatments including dexamethasone and remdesivir., Results: Eosinophil recovery was evaluated in patients with <50 eosinophils/μL on admission (n = 1282). These patients cumulatively amassed 11,633 hospital patient-days; 3,985 of those days qualified as eosinophil recovery events, which were represented by 781 patients achieving at least one instance of eosinophil recovery during hospitalization. Despite no significant difference in the rate of mechanical ventilation, eosinophil recoverers had significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality (aHR: 0.44 [0.29, 0.65], P = 0.001) and ICU admission (aHR: 0.25 [0.11, 0.61], P = 0.002)., Conclusion: Trending eosinophil counts during hospitalization is simple and can be performed in resource-limited healthcare settings to track the inflammatory status of a patient. Lack of eosinophil recovery events can identify those at risk for future progression to severe COVID., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Drs. Buhr and Tashkin report personal consulting fees from Theravance Biopharma/Viatris, unrelated to this work. Drs. Buhr, Fulcher, and Salehi-rad are employed by the Veterans Health Administration. The views and positions in this manuscript do not necessarily represent those of the United States Government. Dr. Barjaktarevic reports funding from NHLBI, PCORI, COPD foundation Alpha-1 Foundation Theravance, Viatris, Amgen, Aerogen and Johnny Carson's Foundation and has received consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Theravance, Viatris, Aerogen, Verona Pharma, Grifols, Inhibrx and Regeneron, all unrelated to this project. Drs. Hixson, LeMaster, and Shover, Ms. Markovic, and Mr. Yan report nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with worsened outcomes in COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). However, data remain fraught with heterogeneity and bias from comorbid conditions. Additionally, data on the impact of COPD-specific factors, such as pre-hospital medications and pulmonologist involvement, remain sparse., Objective: We report a single-center analysis of COPD patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to those without COPD. Primary outcomes include ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality., Methods: We evaluated all patients ≥40 years admitted with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between February 2020 and February 2021. COPD was defined by documented ICD-10 diagnosis of COPD, confirmed smoking history, and active bronchodilator use. We compared outcomes between COPD patients and the remainder of the COVID-19 cohort. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbid conditions., Results: Of 1537 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 122 (7.9%) carried a diagnosis of COPD. The COPD cohort was older (74 ± 13 vs 66 ± 15 years, P < 0.001) and more often former smokers (P < 0.001). Comorbid conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease were more prevalent in the COPD group (P < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbid conditions, the COPD cohort had higher severity scores and trended towards fewer hospital-free days. Among patients with COPD, pre-hospital use of aspirin was associated with decreased ICU admissions (aHR 0.56, P = 0.049) and mechanical ventilation (aHR 0.25, P = 0.008), while LAMAs (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (aHR 0.34, P = 0.047). Involvement of pulmonology in pre-hospital management of COPD was not found to significantly affect outcomes., Conclusion: When corrected for comorbid illnesses, COPD was associated with more severe disease but not with increased ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital mortality rates. Among COPD patients, prehospital treatment with aspirin and COPD-directed therapies were associated with improved outcomes., Competing Interests: Dr Russell G Buhr reports grants from NIH/NCATS, during the conduct of the study; grants from NIH/NHLBI, personal fees from Viatris/Theravance Biopharma, personal fees from Dynamed/American College of Physicians, outside the submitted work; and Dr. Buhr is employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily represent the views or positions of the US Federal Government. Dr Igor Barjaktarevic reports grants, personal fees from Theravance and Viatris, grants from Amgen, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Verona, personal fees from Inhibrx, personal fees from Grifols, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Aerogen, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Toppen et al.)

BackgroundAdmission eosinopenia (

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with worsened outcomes in COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). However, data remain fraught with heterogeneity and bias from comorbid conditions. Additionally, data on the impact of COPD-specific factors, such as pre-hospital medications and pulmonologist involvement, remain sparse.ObjectiveWe report a single-center analysis of COPD patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to those without COPD. Primary outcomes include ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality.MethodsWe evaluated all patients ≥40 years admitted with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between February 2020 and February 2021. COPD was defined by documented ICD-10 diagnosis of COPD, confirmed smoking history, and active bronchodilator use. We compared outcomes between COPD patients and the remainder of the COVID-19 cohort. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbid conditions.ResultsOf 1537 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 122 (7.9%) carried a diagnosis of COPD. The COPD cohort was older (74 ± 13 vs 66 ± 15 years, P < 0.001) and more often former smokers (P < 0.001). Comorbid conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease were more prevalent in the COPD group (P < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbid conditions, the COPD cohort had higher severity scores and trended towards fewer hospital-free days. Among patients with COPD, pre-hospital use of aspirin was associated with decreased ICU admissions (aHR 0.56, P = 0.049) and mechanical ventilation (aHR 0.25, P = 0.008), while LAMAs (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (aHR 0.34, P = 0.047). Involvement of pulmonology in pre-hospital management of COPD was not found to significantly affect outcomes.ConclusionWhen corrected for comorbid illnesses, COPD was associated with more severe disease but not with increased ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital mortality rates. Among COPD patients, prehospital treatment with aspirin and COPD-directed therapies were associated with improved outcomes.

BackgroundWhile cannabis is known to have immunomodulatory properties, the clinical consequences of its use on outcomes in COVID-19 have not been extensively evaluated. We aimed to assess whether cannabis users hospitalized for COVID-19 had improved outcomes compared to non-users.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 1831 patients admitted to two medical centers in Southern California with a diagnosis of COVID-19. We evaluated outcomes including NIH COVID-19 Severity Score, need for supplemental oxygen, ICU (intensive care unit) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization, and in-hospital death for cannabis users and non-users. Cannabis use was reported in the patient's social history. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body-mass index, sex, race, tobacco smoking history, and comorbidities known to be risk factors for COVID-19 mortality between cannabis users and non-users.ResultsOf 1831 patients admitted with COVID-19, 69 patients reported active cannabis use (4% of the cohort). Active users were younger (44 years vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), less often diabetic (23.2% vs 37.2%, p < 0.021), and more frequently active tobacco smokers (20.3% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001) compared to non-users. Notably, active users had lower levels of inflammatory markers upon admission than non-users-CRP (C-reactive protein) (3.7 mg/L vs 7.6 mg/L, p < 0.001), ferritin (282 μg/L vs 622 μg/L, p < 0.001), D-dimer (468 ng/mL vs 1140 ng/mL, p = 0.017), and procalcitonin (0.10 ng/mL vs 0.15 ng/mL, p = 0.001). Based on univariate analysis, cannabis users had significantly better outcomes compared to non-users as reflected in lower NIH scores (5.1 vs 6.0, p < 0.001), shorter hospitalization (4 days vs 6 days, p < 0.001), lower ICU admission rates (12% vs 31%, p < 0.001), and less need for mechanical ventilation (6% vs 17%, p = 0.027). Using propensity matching, differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between cannabis users and non-users, nevertheless ICU admission was 12 percentage points lower (p = 0.018) and intubation rates were 6 percentage points lower (p = 0.017) in cannabis users.ConclusionsThis retrospective cohort study suggests that active cannabis users hospitalized with COVID-19 had better clinical outcomes compared with non-users, including decreased need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation. However, our results need to be interpreted with caution given the limitations of a retrospective analysis. Prospective and observational studies will better elucidate the effects cannabis use in COVID-19 patients.