The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, our aim was to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, and to compare this score with other existing ones. Consecutive patients (≥18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March-July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August-September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Median (25th-75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48-72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829 to 0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833 to 0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870 to 0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). We designed and validated an easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation, for early stratification for in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar a efetividade do uso de protocolos de triagem avançada no tempo de permanência, segurança e satisfação dos pacientes e profissionais no serviço de emergência. Método Revisão sistemática com metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados das bases de dados Embase, BVS, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library e literatura cinza, utilizando o Review Manager 5.4. Foram incluídos estudos que analisaram tempo de permanência em seus desfechos e excluídos estudos que consideraram outros protocolos de triagem. Resultados Foram encontrados 26.672 estudos, revisados por pares, e dez foram incluídos na metanálise. Para tempo de permanência dos pacientes, sete estudos foram incluídos na metanálise (n=8.229), mostrando uma redução de 36 minutos (-0,36[-0,55; -0,17] p=0,002), resultado com baixa certeza de evidências, favorável à intervenção, variando entre -0,53(-0,81; - 0,25) e -0,29(-0,50; -0,07) na análise dos subgrupos. Quanto aos exames solicitados, cinco estudos foram incluídos (n=2270), indicando que não há diferença significativa entre os grupos (odds ratio 0,94 [0,64;1,38]). Quatro estudos (n=6094) analisaram a satisfação dos pacientes e profissionais, apontando um resultado favorável à intervenção. Conclusão O protocolo de triagem avançada reduziu o tempo de permanência na emergência sem comprometer a segurança e a qualidade do atendimento, embora sejam necessários mais estudos clínicos randomizados sobre o tema. Registrado na PROSPERO (CRD42019142640).

Background: The economic impact associated with the treatment strategies of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients by hospitals and health-care systems in Brazil is unknown and difficult to estimate. This research describes the investments made to absorb the demand for treatment and the changes in occupation rates and billing in Brazilian hospitals. Methods: This research covers the initial findings of “COVID-19 hospital costs and the proposition of a bundled reimbursement strategy for the health-care system,” which includes 10 hospitals. The chief financial officer, the chief medical officer, and hospital executives of each participating hospital provided information regarding investments attributed to COVID-19 patient treatment. The analysis included variations in occupation rates and billing from 2019 to 2020 observed in each institution, and the investments for medical equipment, individual protection materials and building construction per patient treated. Results: The majority of hospitals registered a decrease in hospitalization rates and revenue from 2019 to 2020. For intensive care units (ICUs), the mean occupancy rate ranged from 88% to 83%, and for wards, it ranged from 85% to 73%. Monthly average revenue decreased by 10%. The mean hospital investment per COVID-19 inpatient was I$6800 (standard deviation 7664), with the purchase of ventilators as the most common investment. For this item, the mean, highest and lowest acquisition cost per ventilator were, respectively, I$31 468, I$48 881 and I$17 777. Conclusion: There was significant variability in acquisition costs and investments by institution for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the importance of continuing microeconomic studies for a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs. Only with more detailed analyses, will it be possible to define and drive sustainable strategies to manage and reimburse COVID-19 treatment in health-care systems.

Background: Although dementia has emerged as an important risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, results on COVID-19-related complications and mortality are not consistent. We examined the clinical presentations and outcomes of COVID-19 in a multicentre cohort of in-hospital patients, comparing those with and without dementia. Methods: This retrospective observational study comprises COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients aged ≥ 60 years admitted to 38 hospitals from 19 cities in Brazil. Data were obtained from electronic hospital records. A propensity score analysis was used to match patients with and without dementia (up to 3:1) according to age, sex, comorbidities, year, and hospital of admission. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We also assessed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), kidney replacement therapy (KRT), sepsis, nosocomial infection, and thromboembolic events. Results: Among 1,556 patients included in the study, 405 (4.5%) had a diagnosis of dementia and 1,151 were matched controls. When compared to matched controls, patients with dementia had a lower frequency of dyspnoea, cough, myalgia, headache, ageusia, and anosmia; and higher frequency of fever and delirium. They also had a lower frequency of ICU admission (32.7% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001) and shorter ICU length of stay (7 vs. 9 days, p < 0.026), and a lower frequency of sepsis (17% vs. 24%, p = 0.005), KRT (6.4% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and IVM (4.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.002). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups. Conclusion: Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 differ between older inpatients with and without dementia. We observed that dementia alone could not explain the higher short-term mortality following severe COVID-19. Therefore, clinicians should consider other risk factors such as acute morbidity severity and baseline frailty when evaluating the prognosis of older adults with dementia hospitalised with COVID-19.