Clinical outcomes in COVID-19 among patients with hypertension in the Philippine CORONA Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between hypertension and clinical outcomes in a cohort of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirty-seven (37) hospitals in the Philippines. PATIENTS: 10,881 patients admitted for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 10,881 patients included in the Philippine CORONA Study, 3647 (33.5%) had hypertension. On regression analysis adjusted for confounders (age group, sex, smoking history, diabetes, chronic cardiac disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic respiratory disease, chronic neurologic disease, chronic liver disease, HIV/AIDS, and malignancy), patients with hypertension had significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52), respiratory failure (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.75-2.28), ICU admission (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.90-2.45) and severe/critical disease (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.41-1.75), compared to patients without hypertension. The time-to-event analysis with confounder adjustment also showed that hypertension was significantly associated with shorter time-to-event outcomes of in-hospital mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), respiratory failure (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.65-2.10), and ICU admission (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.76-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of nationwide data confirmed previous findings that hypertension is an independent risk factor for worse clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with increased odds of in-hospital mortality, respiratory failure, ICU admission, and severe/critical COVID-19. More specific studies should be done to elucidate the impact of hypertension characteristics, such as chronicity, severity, drug therapy, and level of control on these clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.103 | 0.440 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".