Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I². We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80–1.49, I² = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52–0.96, I² = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9–100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51–0.66, I² = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38–1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55–1.24, five RCTs), respectively.ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.     

Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mortality rates of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) continue to rise across the world. Information regarding the predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 remains scarce. Herein, we performed a systematic review of published articles, from 1 January to 24 April 2020, to evaluate the risk factors associated with mortality in COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched the articles and collected the data, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We looked for associations between mortality and patient characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 14 studies documenting the outcomes of 4659 patients were included. The presence of comorbidities such as hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.1; P < .00001), coronary heart disease (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.1-6.9; P < .00001), and diabetes (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3; P < .00001) were associated with significantly higher risk of death amongst patients with COVID-19. Those who died, compared with those who survived, differed on multiple biomarkers on admission including elevated levels of cardiac troponin (+44.2 ng/L, 95% CI, 19.0-69.4; P = .0006); C-reactive protein (+66.3 µg/mL, 95% CI, 46.7-85.9; P < .00001); interleukin-6 (+4.6 ng/mL, 95% CI, 3.6-5.6; P < .00001); D-dimer (+4.6 µg/mL, 95% CI, 2.8-6.4; P < .00001); creatinine (+15.3 µmol/L, 95% CI, 6.2-24.3; P = .001); and alanine transaminase (+5.7 U/L, 95% CI, 2.6-8.8; P = .0003); as well as decreased levels of albumin (−3.7 g/L, 95% CI, −5.3 to −2.1; P < .00001). Individuals with underlying cardiometabolic disease and that present with evidence for acute inflammation and end-organ damage are at higher risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and should be managed with greater intensity.     

Improved COVID-19 ICU admission and mortality outcomes following treatment with statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionApproximately 1% of the world population has now been infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With cases still rising and vaccines just beginning to rollout, we are still several months away from seeing reductions in daily case numbers, hospitalisations, and mortality. Therefore, there is a still an urgent need to control the disease spread by repurposing existing therapeutics. Owing to antiviral, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and cardioprotective actions, statin therapy has been considered as a plausible approach to improve COVID-19 outcomes.Material and methodsWe carried out a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of statins on 3 COVID-19 outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, tracheal intubation, and death. We systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases using keywords related to our aims up to November 2, 2020. All published observational studies and randomised clinical trials on COVID-19 and statins were retrieved. Statistical analysis with random effects modelling was performed using STATA16 software.ResultsThe final selected studies (n = 24 studies; 32,715 patients) showed significant reductions in ICU admission (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.58–1.06; n = 10; I² = 58.5%) and death (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55–0.88; n = 21; I² = 82.5%) outcomes, with no significant effect on tracheal intubation (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.57–1.11; n = 7; I²= 89.0%). Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested that death was reduced further by in-hospital application of stains (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22–0.73, n = 3; I² = 82.5%), compared with pre-hospital use (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60–0.98, n = 18; I² = 81.8%).ConclusionsThese findings call attention to the need for systematic clinical studies to assess both pre- and in-hospital use of statins as a potential means of reducing COVID-19 disease severity, particularly in terms of reduction of ICU admission and total mortality reduction.     

Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Following the demonstration of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro, many trials started to evaluate its efficacy in clinical settings. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis have addressed the issue of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the objectives of evaluation of safety and efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination in terms of “time to clinical cure,” “virological cure,” “death or clinical worsening of disease,” “radiological progression,” and safety. RevMan was used for meta-analysis. We searched 16 literature databases out of which seven studies (n = 1358) were included in the systematic review. In terms of clinical cure, two studies reported possible benefit in “time to body temperature normalization” and one study reported less “cough days” in the HCQ arm. Treatment with HCQ resulted in less number of cases showing the radiological progression of lung disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.9). No difference was observed in virological cure (OR, 2.37, 95% CI, 0.13-44.53), death or clinical worsening of disease (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.37-21.97), and safety (OR, 2.19, 95% CI, 0.59-8.18), when compared with the control/conventional treatment. Five studies reported either the safety or efficacy of HCQ + azithromycin. Although seems safe and effective, more data are required for a definitive conclusion. HCQ seems to be promising in terms of less number of cases with radiological progression with a comparable safety profile to control/conventional treatment. We need more data to come to a definite conclusion.     

Chest CT abnormalities in COVID-19: a systematic review

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest is one of the main diagnositic tools for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To document the chest CT findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 and their association with the clinical severity, we searched related literatures through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (inception to May 4, 2020) and reviewed reference lists of previous systematic reviews. A total of 31 case reports (3768 patients) on CT findings of COVID-19 were included. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (18.4%) and diabetes mellitus (8.3%). The most common symptom was fever (78.7%), followed by cough (60.2%). It took an average of 5.6 days from symptom onset to admission. The most common chest CT finding was vascular enlargement (84.8%), followed by ground-glass opacity (GGO) (60.1%), air-bronchogram (47.8%), and consolidation (41.4%). Most lung lesions were located in the lung periphery (72.2%) and involved bilateral lung (76%). Most patients showed normal range of laboratory findings such as white blood cell count (96.4%) and lymphocyte (87.2%). Compared to previous published meta-analyses, our study is the first to summarize the different radiologic characteristics of chest CT in a total of 3768 COVID-19 patients by compiling case series studies. A comprehensive diagnostic approach should be adopted for patients with known COVID-19, suspected cases, and for exposed individuals.     

Quercetin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently approved therapies for COVID-19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in-hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random-effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID-19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎患者急诊科转运路径

2019年12月以来,武汉市暴发新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19),并迅速蔓延至全国各地。为了有效防控疾病的蔓延,大部分省市均启动限制交通、出入等措施,这给患者的急诊转运流程带来了巨大的挑战。为了有效促使患者顺利入院接受救治,四川大学华西医院急诊科采用了一种创新医疗隔离运输系统以转运新型冠状病毒肺炎患者,并应用于首例患者的急诊转运,最终使该患者顺利入院,且转运途中病情稳定,按计划进行治疗,未发生二次感染病例。     

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.ObjectivesTo evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.Data sourcesBeginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials; all languages.ParticipantsAll hospitalized adults with COVID-19.InterventionsRemdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.Assessment of risk of biasWe used the ROB-2 criteria.Methods of data synthesisThe primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.ResultsWe identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5–1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79–0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88–1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.ConclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.     

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on semen parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on semen parameters through systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched by June 2022. Studies were considered eligible if they compared semen parameters before and after COVID-19 vaccination or between vaccinated and unvaccinated men, with no restrictions on vaccine types or doses. The effect size was calculated as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the sources of heterogeneity measured by the I² statistic, with publication bias evaluated by Egger's test. Twelve cohort studies involving 914 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In a comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated group, the pooled data revealed no significant differences in semen volume (MD = 0.18 ml, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.38), sperm concentration (MD = 1.16 million/ml, 95% CI −1.34 to 3.66), total sperm motility (MD = −0.14%, 95% CI −2.84 to 2.56), progressive sperm motility (MD = −1.06%, 95% CI −2.88 to 0.77), total sperm count (MD = 5.92 million, 95% CI −10.22 to 22.05), total motile sperm count (MD = 2.18 million, 95% CI −1.28 to 5.63), total progressively motile sperm count (MD = −3.87 million, 95% CI −13.16 to 5.43), and sperm morphology (MD = 0.07%, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.97). The results also remained similar across messenger ribonucleic acid, viral-vector, and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Sensitivity analysis identified two individual studies that contributed to heterogeneity, while the effect size was not materially altered. No obvious publication bias was detected among included studies. Our finding suggested that COVID-19 vaccination had no detrimental impact on semen quality, which could be potentially helpful to reduce male vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccination coverage.     

The value of clinical parameters in predicting the severity of COVID-19

To study the relationship between clinical indexes and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to explore its role in predicting the severity of COVID-19. Clinical data of 443 patients with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, which were divided into nonsevere group (n = 304) and severe group (n = 139) according to their condition. Clinical indicators were compared between different groups. The differences in sex, age, the proportion of patients with combined heart disease, leukocyte, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), neutrophil, lymphocyte, platelet, D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, and albumin on admission between the two groups were statistically significant (P < .05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed NLR and CRP were independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Platelets were independent protective factors for severe COVID-19. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated area under the curve of NLR, platelet, CRP, and combination was 0.737, 0.634, 0.734, and 0.774, respectively. NLR, CRP, and platelets can effectively assess the severity of COVID-19, among which NLR is the best predictor of severe COVID-19, and the combination of three clinical indicators can further predict severe COVID-19.     

COVID-19 and liver dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies

Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the most significant global health crisis. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to find the association between liver injuries and the severity of COVID-19 disease. Online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science direct, were searched to detect relevant publications up to 16 April 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity between studies, a fixed- or random-effects model was applied to pool data. Publication bias Egger's test was also performed. Meta-analysis of 20 retrospective studies (3428 patients), identified that patients with a severe manifestation of COVID-19 exhibited significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin values with prolonged prothrombin time. Furthermore, lower albumin level was associated with a severe presentation of COVID-19. Liver dysfunction was associated with a severe outcome of COVID-19 disease. Close monitoring of the occurrence of liver dysfunction is beneficial in early warning of unfavorable outcomes.     

INR and COVID-19 severity and mortality: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

ObjectivesD-dimer elevations, suggesting a pro-thrombotic state and coagulopathy, predict adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical significance of other coagulation markers, particularly the international normalized ratio (INR), is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the INR in COVID-19.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, between January 2020 and February 2021, for studies reporting INR values, measures of COVID-19 severity, and mortality (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021241468).ResultsThirty-eight studies in 7440 COVID-19 patients with low disease severity or survivor status during follow up (50 ​% males, mean age 57 years) and 2331 with high severity or non-survivor status (60 ​% males, mean age 69 years) were identified. The INR was significantly prolonged in patients with severe disease or non-survivor status than in patients with mild disease or survivor status (standard mean difference, SMD, 0.60; 95 ​% confidence interval, CI 0.42 to 0.77; p ​< ​0.001). There was extreme between-study heterogeneity (I² ​= ​90.2 ​%; p ​< ​0.001). Sensitivity analysis, performed by sequentially removing each study and re-assessing the pooled estimates, showed that the magnitude and direction of the effect size was not modified. The Begg's and Egger's t-tests did not show publication bias. In meta-regression, the SMD of the INR was significantly associated with C-reactive protein (p ​= ​0.048) and D-dimer (p ​= ​0.001).ConclusionsProlonged INR values were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Both INR prolongation and D-dimer elevations can be useful in diagnosing COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and predicting clinical outcomes.     

New-onset diabetes in COVID-19 and clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDDiabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 is known to be bidirectional.AIMTo analyze the rate of new-onset diabetes in COVID-19 patients and compare the clinical outcomes of new-onset diabetes, pre-existing diabetes, hyperglycemic, and non-diabetes among COVID-19 patients.METHODSWe used the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for the present meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for all peer-reviewed articles published until November 6, 2020. Articles were screened using Covidence and data extracted. Further analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis. Among the 128 studies detected after thorough database searching, seven were included in the quantitative analysis. The proportion was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed using I².RESULTSAnalysis showed that 19.70% (CI: 10.93-32.91) of COVID-19 patients had associated DM, and 25.23% (CI: 19.07-32.58) had associated hyperglycemia. The overall mortality rate was 15.36% (CI: 12.57-18.68) of all COVID-19 cases, irrespective of their DM status. The mortality rate was 9.26% among non-diabetic patients, 10.59% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 16.03% among known DM patients, and 24.96% among COVID-19 associated DM patients. The overall occurrence of adverse events was 20.52% (CI: 14.21-28.70) among COVID-19 patients in the included studies, 15.29% among non-diabetic patients, 20.41% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 20.69% among known DM patients, and 45.85% among new-onset DM. Meta-regression showed an increasing rate of mortality among new hyperglycemic patients, known diabetics, and new-onset DM patients in comparison to those without diabetes.CONCLUSIONA significantly higher rate of new onset DM and hyperglycemia was observed. Higher mortality rates and adverse events were seen in patients with new-onset DM and hyperglycemia than in the non-diabetic population.     

Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers

ObjectivesTo assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis on COVID-19 risk.MethodsEPICOS is a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Spain, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG test were randomly assigned to the following: daily TDF/FTC plus HCQ for 12 weeks, TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo, HCQ plus TDF/FTC placebo, and TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ placebo. Randomization was performed in groups of four. Primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19. We also studied any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) COVID-19. We compared group-specific 14-week risks via differences and ratios with 95% CIs.ResultsOf 1002 individuals screened, 926 (92.4%) were eligible and there were 14 cases of symptomatic COVID-19: 220 were assigned to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ group (3 cases), 231 to the TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ group (3 cases), 233 to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo group (3 cases), and 223 to the double placebo group (5 cases). Compared with the double placebo group, 14-week risk ratios (95% CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 were 0.39 (0.00–1.98) for TDF + HCQ, 0.34 (0.00–2.06) for TDF, and 0.49 (0.00–2.29) for HCQ. Corresponding risk ratios of any COVID-19 were 0.51 (0.21–1.00) for TDF + HCQ, 0.81 (0.44–1.49) for TDF, and 0.73 (0.41–1.38) for HCQ. Adverse events were generally mild.DiscussionThe target sample size was not met. Our findings are compatible with both benefit and harm of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC and HCQ, alone or in combination, compared with placebo.     

Prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome symptoms at different follow-up periods: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPost-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.Data sourcesSearches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsArticles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.MethodsRandom-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.ResultsAfter screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19–negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.ConclusionsThis systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.     

A compendium answering 150 questions on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence-based medical advice on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self-limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID-19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a “cytokine storm” leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID-19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID-19–related topics should be based on more coordinated high-quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID-19 and allergic disease.     

三级综合医院手术室应对新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间的管理策略

新型冠状病毒肺炎作为急性呼吸道传染病已被纳入乙类传染病,按甲类传染病管理。我院作为重庆市定点救治医院,启动突发公共事件一级响应。手术室是临床枢纽科室,人员复杂,是感染发生的高风险科室。我院手术室根据国家相关规定制定管理对策,全面做好人力、物资、环境管理,确保手术室的正常运行,保障患者及医务人员安全。     

COVID-19 susceptibility and clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The susceptibility, risk factors, and prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain unknown. Thus, our study aims to assess the prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in IBD. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and medRxiv from 2019 to 1 June 2022 for cohort and case-control studies comparing the prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with IBD and in the general population. We also compared the outcomes of patients receiving and not receiving 5-aminosalicylates (ASA), tumour necrosis factor antagonists, biologics, systemic corticosteroids, or immunomodulators for IBD. Thirty five studies were eligible for our analysis. Pooled odds ratio of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death in IBD compared to in non-IBD were 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28–1.18), 1.09 (95% CI = 0.27–4.47), and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.32–1.42), respectively. Inflammatory bowel disease was not associated with increased hospitalisation, ICU admission, or death. Susceptibility to COVID-19 did not increase with any drugs for IBD. Hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death were more likely with 5-ASA and corticosteroid use. COVID-19-related hospitalisation (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.53; 95% CI = 0.38–0.74) and death (OR: 0.13; 95% CI = 0.13–0.70) were less likely with Crohn's disease than ulcerative colitis (UC). In conclusion, IBD does not increase the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19. However, physicians should be aware that additional monitoring is needed in UC patients or in patients taking 5-ASA or systemic corticosteroids.