Impact of Chronic Respiratory Diseases on the Outcomes of COVID-19

Direct impact of 2 years of COVID-19 on chronic disease patients: a population-based study in a large hard-hit Italian region

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide a region-wide comprehensive account of the direct effects of COVID-19 on chronic disease patients, in terms of disease incidence, severity and mortality, over a 2-year pandemic period (2020-2021).

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients, affected by at least 1 of 32 prevalent chronic conditions, residing in the Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy, during the years 2020 (N=1 791 189, 47.7% of the overall adult regional population) and 2021 (N=1 801 071, 47.8%).

RESULTS

COVID-19 incidence among chronic disease patients was 4.1% (74 067 cases) in 2020 and 7.3% (126 556 cases) in 2021, varying across pathologies, with obesity and dementia showing the highest incidence. Hospitalisation rate for pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was 15.4%. COVID-19-related excess mortality, that is, deaths from COVID-19 as either main or contributing (1.5% of the total) cause of death, was observed during the three pandemic waves, with observed/expected death ratios ranging from +38% (March 2020) to +11% (December 2021). Increased risks of both COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death were associated with male gender, elderly age and many pre-existing pathologies, including cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and respiratory diseases, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and metabolic dysfunctions. The higher the number of concomitant pathologies, the greater the risk of COVID-19-related adverse outcomes: the likelihood of hospitalisation and death more than doubled for people with more than two comorbidities, compared with those with one underlying condition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a thorough and up-to-date quantification of the direct impact of COVID-19 on chronic disease patients. The results obtained are particularly relevant considering that people with pre-existing chronic conditions accounted for almost all cases of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (82.6%) and death (91.5%) in a vast region of Italy, among the hardest hit by the pandemic.

Clinical standards for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice' care for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease.METHODS: A panel of international experts representing scientific societies, associations and groups active in post-COVID-19 lung disease was identified; 45 completed a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale indicated level of agreement with the draft standards. The final version was approved by consensus (with 100% agreement).RESULTS: Four clinical standards were agreed for patients with a previous history of COVID-19: Standard 1, Patients with sequelae not explained by an alternative diagnosis should be evaluated for possible post-COVID-19 lung disease; Standard 2, Patients with lung function impairment, reduced exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life (QoL) or other relevant signs or ongoing symptoms ≥4 weeks after the onset of first symptoms should be evaluated for treatment and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); Standard 3, The PR programme should be based on feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria, organised according to local health services and tailored to an individual patient's needs; and Standard 4, Each patient undergoing and completing PR should be evaluated to determine its effectiveness and have access to a counselling/health education session.CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based set of clinical standards for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease. Our aim is to improve patient care and QoL by guiding clinicians, programme managers and public health officers in planning and implementing a PR programme to manage post-COVID-19 lung disease.

Prognosis Predictive Markers in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and COVID-19

Some studies have reported that chronic respiratory illnesses in patients with COVID-19 result in an increase in hospitalization and death rates, while other studies reported to the contrary. The present research aims to determine if a predictive model (developed by combing different clinical, imaging, or blood markers) could be established for patients with both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19, in order to be able to foresee the outcomes of these patients. A prospective observational cohort of 165 patients with both diseases was analyzed in terms of clinical characteristics, blood tests, and chest computed tomography results. The beta-coefficients from the logistic regression were used to create a score based on the significant identified markers for poor outcomes (transfers to an intensive care unit (ICU) for mechanical ventilation, or death). The severity of COVID-19, renal failure, diabetes, smoking status (current or previous), the requirement for oxygen therapy upon admission, high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and C-reactive protein level (CRP readings), and low eosinophil and lymphocyte counts were all identified as being indicators of a poor prognosis. Higher mortality was linked to the occurrence of renal failure, the number of affected lobes, the need for oxygen therapy upon hospital admission, high LDH, and low lymphocyte levels. Patients had an 86.4% chance of dying if their mortality scores were -2.80 or lower, based on the predictive model. The factors that were linked to a poor prognosis in patients who had both COPD and COVID-19 were the same as those that were linked to a poor prognosis in patients who had only COVID-19.

Association of non-alcoholic fatty liver and metabolic-associated fatty liver with COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) are on the rise like any other liver disease, and tend to affect 25% of the United States population. The impact of NAFLD and MAFLD on patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear.

AIM

To identify the association of NAFLD and MAFLD with mortality, hospitalization, hospital length of stay, and supplemental oxygen utilization in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature on Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases was conducted from January 2019 to July 2022. Studies that evaluated NAFLD/MAFLD using laboratory methods, noninvasive imaging, or liver biopsy were included. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022313259) and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Pooled analysis was conducted using software Rev Man version 5.3. The stability of the results was assessed using sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies with 43388 patients were included in the meta-analysis of whom 8538 (20%) patients were observed to have NAFLD. There were 42254 patients from 28 studies included in the mortality analysis. A total of 2008 patients died from COVID-19; 837 (10.52%) in the NAFLD group and 1171 (3.41%) in the non-NAFLD group. The odds ratio (OR) was 1.38 for mortality with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.97-1.95 and P = 0.07. A total of 5043 patients from eight studies were included in the hospital length of stay analysis. There were 1318 patients in the NAFLD group and 3725 patients in the non-NAFLD group. A qualitative synthesis showed that the mean difference in hospital length of stay was about 2 d between the NAFLD and non-NAFLD groups with a 95%CI = 0.71-3.27 and P = 0.002. For hospitalization rates, the OR was 3.25 with a 95%CI of 1.73-6.10 and P = 0.0002. For supplemental oxygen utilization, the OR was 2.04 with a 95%CI of 1.17-3.53 and P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that there are increased odds of hospitalization, longer hospital length of stay, and increased use of supplemental oxygen in NAFLD/MAFLD patients.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine booster in the general population and in subjects with comorbidities. A population-based study in Spain

BACKGROUND

Research on the effectiveness of COVID-19 booster-based vaccine schedule is ongoing and real-world data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in comorbid patients are limited. We aimed to estimate booster dose VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in the general population and in comorbid patients.

METHOD

A retrospective test-negative control study was undertaken in Galicia-Spain (December 2020-November 2021). VE and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

1,512,415 (94.13%) negative and 94,334 (5.87%) positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were included. A booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine is associated with substantially higher protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination without a booster [VE_boosted = 87% (95%CI: 83%; 89%); VE_non-boosted = 66% (95%CI: 65%; 67%)]. The high VE was observed in all ages, but was more pronounced in subjects older than 65 years. VE against COVID-19 severity was analyzed in a mixed population of boosted and non-boosted individuals and considerable protection was obtained [VE: hospitalization = 72% (95%CI: 68%; 75%); intensive care unit administration = 83% (95%CI: 78%; 88%), in-hospital mortality = 66% (95%CI: 53%; 75%)]. Boosted comorbid patients are more protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who were non-boosted. This was observed in a wide range of major diseases including cancer (81% versus 54%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (84% versus 61%), diabetes (84% versus 65%), hypertension (82% versus 65%) and obesity (91% versus 67%), among others.

CONCLUSIONS

A booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine increases the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in the general population and in comorbid patients.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in peripheral lung club cells modulates the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Accumulating evidence has confirmed that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a risk factor for development of severe pathological changes in the peripheral lungs of patients with COVID-19. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain unclear. Because bronchiolar club cells are crucial for maintaining small airway homeostasis, we sought to explore whether the altered susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection of the club cells might have contributed to the severe COVID-19 pneumonia in COPD patients. Our investigation on the quantity and distribution patterns of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in airway epithelium via immunofluorescence staining revealed that the mean fluorescence intensity of the ACE2-positive epithelial cells was significantly higher in club cells than those in other epithelial cells (including ciliated cells, basal cells, goblet cells, neuroendocrine cells, and alveolar type 2 cells). Compared with nonsmokers, the median percentage of club cells in bronchiolar epithelium and ACE2-positive club cells was significantly higher in COPD patients. In vitro, SARS-CoV-2 infection (at a multiplicity of infection of 1.0) of primary small airway epithelial cells, cultured on air-liquid interface, confirmed a higher percentage of infected ACE2-positive club cells in COPD patients than in nonsmokers. Our findings have indicated the role of club cells in modulating the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2-related severe pneumonia and the poor clinical outcomes, which may help physicians to formulate a novel therapeutic strategy for COVID-19 patients with coexisting COPD.

Research advances and clinical management of bronchiectasis: Chinese perspective

Bronchiectasis is a debilitating chronic suppurative airway disease that confers a substantial burden globally. Despite the notable prevalence, research on bronchiectasis in mainland China remains in its infancy. Nevertheless, there has been a significant leap in the quantity and quality of research, which has contributed to the ever-improving clinical practice. A nationwide collaborative platform has been established to foster multicentre studies, which will help increase the level of evidence further. Here, we summarise the status quo of clinical management and consider the research priorities for bronchiectasis that have been published previously. We also highlight the efforts of the Chinese medical communities to outline the core tasks that need to be addressed within the next decade.

The remarkable progress made in bronchiectasis research has revolutionised clinical practice in mainland Chinahttps://bit.ly/3K8kQYr