Prevalence and clinical outcomes of cardiac injury in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsEmerging data have linked the presence of cardiac injury with a worse prognosis in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, available data cannot clearly characterize the correlation between cardiac injury and COVID-19. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of recent studies to 1) explore the prevalence of cardiac injury in different types of COVID-19 patients and 2) evaluate the association between cardiac injury and worse prognosis (severe disease, admission to ICU, and mortality) in patients with COVID-19.Methods and resultsLiterature search was conducted through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and MedRxiv databases. A meta-analysis was performed with Stata 14.0. A fixed-effects model was used if the I² values ≤ 50%, otherwise the random-effects model was performed. The prevalence of cardiac injury was 19% (95% CI: 0.15–0.22, and p < 0.001) in total COVID-19 patients, 36% (95% CI: 0.25–0.47, and p < 0.001) in severe COVID-19 patients, and 48% (95% CI: 0.30–0.66, and p < 0.001) in non-survivors. Furthermore, cardiac injury was found to be associated with a significant increase in the risk of poor outcomes with a pooled effect size (ES) of 8.46 (95% CI: 3.76–19.06, and p = 0.062), severe disease with an ES of 3.54 (95% CI: 2.25–5.58, and p < 0.001), admission to ICU with an ES of 5.03 (95% CI: 2.69–9.39, and p < 0.001), and mortality with an ES of 4.99 (95% CI: 3.38–7.37, and p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe prevalence of cardiac injury was greatly increased in COVID-19 patients, particularly in patients with severe disease and non-survivors. COVID-19 patients with cardiac injury are more likely to be associated with poor outcomes, severity of disease, admission to ICU, and mortality.     

Burden of diabetes mellitus and its impact on COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis of real-world evidence

Background & aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads rapidly and within no time, it has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Evidence suggests diabetes to be a risk factor for the progression and poor prognosis of COVID-19. Therefore, we aimed to understand the pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients infected with COVID-19. We also aimed to compute the risk of mortality and ICU admissions in COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed to identify the articles reporting the diabetes prevalence and risk of mortality or ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was to compute the pooled prevalence of diabetes in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of mortality and ICU admissions in COVID-19 patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes.ResultsThis meta-analysis was based on a total of 23007 patients from 43 studies. The pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients infected with COVID-19 was found to be 15% (95% CI: 12%–18%), p = <0.0001. Mortality risk was found to be significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with diabetes as compared to COVID-19 patients without diabetes with a pooled risk ratio of 1.61 (95% CI: 1.16–2.25%), p = 0.005. Likewise, risk of ICU admission rate was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with diabetes as compared to COVID-19 patients without diabetes with a pooled risk ratio of 1.88 (1.20%–2.93%), p = 0.006.ConclusionThis meta-analysis found a high prevalence of diabetes and higher mortality and ICU admission risk in COVID-19 patients with diabetes.     

Is diabetes mellitus associated with mortality and severity of COVID-19? A meta-analysis

BackgroundMany studies on COVID-19 have reported diabetes to be associated with severe disease and mortality, however, the data is conflicting. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to explore the relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 mortality and severity, and to determine the prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched the PubMed for case-control studies in English, published between Jan 1 and Apr 22, 2020, that had data on diabetes in patients with COVID-19. The frequency of diabetes was compared between patients with and without the composite endpoint of mortality or severity. Random effects model was used with odds ratio as the effect size. We also determined the pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19. Heterogeneity and publication bias were taken care by meta-regression, sub-group analyses, and trim and fill methods.ResultsWe included 33 studies (16,003 patients) and found diabetes to be significantly associated with mortality of COVID-19 with a pooled odds ratio of 1.90 (95% CI: 1.37–2.64; p < 0.01). Diabetes was also associated with severe COVID-19 with a pooled odds ratio of 2.75 (95% CI: 2.09–3.62; p < 0.01). The combined corrected pooled odds ratio of mortality or severity was 2.16 (95% CI: 1.74–2.68; p < 0.01). The pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.7%–10.9%) (after adjusting for heterogeneity).ConclusionsDiabetes in patients with COVID-19 is associated with a two-fold increase in mortality as well as severity of COVID-19, as compared to non-diabetics. Further studies on the pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic implications need to be done.     

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients represent a vulnerable population that may be susceptible to more severe COVID-19. Moreover, not only the underlying NAFLD may influence the progression of COVID-19, but the COVID-19 may affect the clinical course of NAFLD as well. However, comprehensive evidence on clinical outcomes in patients with NAFLD is not well characterized.ObjectivesTo systematically review and meta-analysis the evidence on clinical outcomes in NAFLD patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through November 2020. Epidemiological studies assessing the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with NAFLD were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. Generic inverse variance method using RevMan was used to determine the pooled estimates using the random-effects model.ResultsFourteen studies consisting of 1851 NAFLD patients, were included. Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies, and studies were of moderate to high quality [mean, (range):8 (6, 8)]. For NAFLD patients, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for the severe COVID-19 was 2.60 (95%CI:2.24–3.02; p < 0.001) (studies,n:8), aOR for admission to ICU due to COVID-19 was 1.66 (95%CI:1.26–2.20; p < 0.001) (studies,n:2), and aOR for mortality for was 1.01 (95%CI:0.65–1.58; p = 0.96) (studies,n:2).ConclusionsAn increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection and admission to ICU due to COVID-19 with no difference in mortality was observed between NAFLD and non-NAFLD patients. Future studies should include the mortality outcome to conclusively elucidate the impact of NAFLD in patients with COVID-19.     

No benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: Results of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”

Background and aimsCoronavirus pandemic is currently a global public health emergency with no definitive treatment guidelines. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature evaluating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and its related formulations in COVID-19 patients.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, MedRxiv data and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials for published articles that reported the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or its compounds was done. We identified 1071 published studies and 7 studies were included in the analysis.ResultsThe study population consisted of a total of 4984 patients, of which 1721 (34.5%) received hydroxychloroquine or its congeners (HCQ group) while 3091 (62.01%) received standard of care or had included antiviral medication (control group). The pooled estimate of successful treatment in the hydroxychloroquine group and the control group was 77.45% and 77.87% respectively, which indicated similar clinical outcomes in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to the control group. The odds ratio of a favourable outcome with hydroxychloroquine was 1.11 (95 CI 0.72 to 1.69) (p = 0.20). The pooled risk difference of favourable outcome with hydroxychloroquine versus control group was 0.00 (95 CI -0.03 to 0.03) which was statistically not significant (p = 0.10).Conclusions: The present evidence shows no benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients affected by mild to moderate COVID-19 disease. However, now several trials on HCQ are ongoing and hopefully more data will be available soon. Hence, the management of COVID-19 is set to change for better in the future.     

“Vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis”

BackgroundVitamin-D is an immune-modulator which might be linked to disease severity by SARS-CoV-2.MethodsMeta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, evaluating the role of vitamin-D supplementation in COVID patients was done.ResultsTotal 5 studies (3 RCTs and 2 Quasi-experimental) including n = 467 patients were included. Vitamin D didn't reduce mortality (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.22 to 1.39, p = 0.21), ICU admission rates (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01–4.26, p = 0.3) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.01–7.89, p = 0.42).ConclusionNo significant difference with vitamin-D supplementation on major health related outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed RCTs are required addressing this topic.     

Statin and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review,meta-analysis,and meta-regression

AimsOne of the comorbidities associated with severe outcome and mortality of COVID-19 is dyslipidemia. Statin is one of the drugs which is most commonly used for the treatment of dyslipidemic patients. This study aims to analyze the association between statin use and composite poor outcomes of COVID-19.Data synthesisWe systematically searched the PubMed and Europe PMC database using specific keywords related to our aims until November 25th, 2020. All articles published on COVID-19 and statin were retrieved. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software.ResultsA total of 35 studies with a total of 11, 930, 583 patients were included in our analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that statin use did not improve the composite poor outcomes of COVID-19 [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.86–1.35), p = 0.50, I² = 98%, random-effect modelling]. Meta-regression showed that the association with composite poor outcomes of COVID-19 was influenced by age (p = 0.010), gender (p = 0.045), and cardiovascular disease (p = 0.012). Subgroup analysis showed that the association was weaker in studies with median age ≥60 years-old (OR 0.94) compared to <60 years-old (OR 1.43), and in the prevalence of cardiovascular disease ≥25% (RR 0.94) compared to <25% (RR 1.24).ConclusionStatin use did not improve the composite poor outcomes of COVID-19. Patients with dyslipidemia should continue taking statin drugs despite COVID-19 infection status, given its beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes.     

Prasugrel vs Ticagrelor for DAPT in Patients with ACS Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

IntroductionDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a P2Y12 inhibitor added to aspirin is considered the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Prasugrel and ticagrelor are commonly used P2Y12 inhibitors, and a few head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs) have been performed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of these RCTs to compare the efficacy and adverse effects between these two agents when used in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane library for RCTs comparing prasugrel to ticagrelor in ACS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and all bleeding event. Estimates were calculated as random effects risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsSix trials with 6807 patients were included. There were no significant difference of MACE (RR 0.93; 95% CI [0.72–1.20]; p = 0.59; I² = 26%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.73–1.17]; p = 0.51; I² = 0%), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.75–1.31]; p = 0.96; I² = 0%), MI (RR 0.87; 95% CI [0.60–1.27]; p = 0.48; I² = 27%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.64; 95% CI [0.39–1.04]; p = 0.07; I² = 0%), major bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI [0.70–1.26]; p = 0.68; I² = 6%), and all bleeding event (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.77–1.09]; p = 0.32; I² = 0%) for prasugrel compared with ticagrelor.ConclusionThere are no significant difference of MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor when added to aspirin among patients with ACS undergoing PCI.     

Glucose dysregulation and its association with COVID-19 mortality and hospital length of stay

Background and aimsWe investigate the impact of blood glucose on mortality and hospital length of stay (HLOS) among COVID-19 patients.MethodsRetrospective study of 456 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and glycemic dysregulation in the New York City area.ResultsWe found that impaired glucose adjusted for other organs systems involved (OR:1.87; 95% CI:1.36–2.57, p < 0.001), increased glucose nadir (OR:34.28; 95% CI:3.97–296.05, p < 0.01) and abnormal blood glucose levels at discharge (OR:5.07; 95% CI:2.31–11.14, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with increased odds for mortality. New or higher from baseline insulin requirement during hospitalization (OR:0.34; 95% CI:0.15–0.78; p < 0.05) was significantly associated with decreased odds for mortality. Increased glucose peak (B = 0.001, SE=<0.001, p < 0.001), new or higher from baseline insulin requirement during hospitalization (B = 0.11, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), and increased days to dysglycemia (B = 0.15, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with increased HLOS. Increased glucose nadir (B = ?0.67, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001), insulin intravenous drip (B = ?0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05), and increased proportion days endocrine system involved (B = ?0.25, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with decreased HLOS.ConclusionGlucose dysregulation adversely affects mortality and HLOS in COVID-19. These data can help clinicians to guide patient treatment and management in COVID-19 patients.     

Thyroid disease and hypothyroidism are associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review,meta-analysis,and meta-regression

Background and aimsCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) still becomes a global burden that affected people in different groups. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between thyroid disease and the outcome of COVID-19 patients.MethodThis was a meta-analysis study from articles obtained through a systematic literature search to investigate the relationship between thyroid disease and COVID-19 outcomes. Composite poor outcomes comprised of severity, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization.ResultsA total of 31339 patients from 21 studies included in this study. Thyroid disorder was associated with increased composite poor outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53, 2.27], p < 0.001; I2 = 84%, p < 0.01), this included higher disease severity (RR 1.92 [1.40, 2.63], p < 0.05; I2 = 86%, p < 0.01), ICU admission (RR 1.61 [1.12, 2.32], p > 0.05; I2 = 32%, p < 0.05), mortality (RR 2.43 [1.44, 4.13], p < 0.05; I2 = 83%, p < 0.01), and hospitalization (RR 1.28 [1.17, 1.39], p < 0.05; I2 = 0%, p < 0.96). Meta-regression analysis indicated that age (p = 0.002) was a significant influence that affects the association. Also, the presence of unspecified thyroid disease (RR 1.91 [1.38, 2.65], p < 0.05; I2 = 81%, p < 0.01) and hypothyroidism (RR 1.90 [1.45, 2.55], p < 0.05; I2 = 85%, p < 0.01) during admission were associated with poor outcomes.ConclusionThyroid abnormalities increased the risk of COVID-19 composite poor outcomes and were influenced by the patient's age. Abnormal thyroid and hypothyroidism, but not hyperthyroidism, were associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes.     

The prognostic values of thyroid disorders in predicting COVID-19 composite poor outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsIn this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic properties of thyroid disorder during admission on poor prognosis and factors that may influence the relationship in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EBSCO, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to August 27, 2021. The main exposure was unspecified and specified thyroid disorders–hypothyroidism or hypothyroidism. The outcome of interest was the COVID-19 composite poor outcome that comprises of severity, mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization.ResultsThere were 24,734 patients from 20 studies. Meta-analysis showed that thyroid disorder was associated with composite poor outcome (OR 2.87 (95% CI 2.04–4.04), p < 0.001; I² = 62.4%, p < 0.001). Meta regression showed that age (p = 0.047) and hypertension (p = 0.01), but not gender (p = 0.15), DM (p = 0.10), CAD/CVD (p = 0.38), obesity (p = 0.84), and COPD (p = 0.07) affected the association. Subgroup analysis showed that thyroid disorder increased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR 5.13 (95% CI 3.22–8.17), p < 0.05; I² = 0%, p = 0.70) and mortality (OR 2.78 (95%CI 1.31–5.90), p < 0.05; I² = 80%, p < 0.01). Pooled diagnostic analysis of thyroid disorder yielded a sensitivity of 0.22 (0.13–0.35), specificity of 0.92 (0.87–0.95), and AUC of 0.72. The probability of poor outcome was 38% in patients with thyroid disorder and 15% in patients without thyroid abnormality.ConclusionOn-admission thyroid disorder was associated with poor prognosis in COVID-19 patients.     

Clinical presentation and mortality risk factors for COVID-19 among diabetic patients in a tertiary care center in South India

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCD) like hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the most common comorbidities among COVID-19 patients. The clinical presentation and mortality pattern of COVID-19 are different for patients with comorbidities and without comorbidities.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and risk factors for COVID-19 mortality among diabetic patients in a tertiary care hospital in South India.MethodsA record-based cross-sectional study was conducted by reviewing the case records of COVID-19 patients admitted for treatment from June 2020 to September 2020 in a tertiary care centre in South India. Potential risk factors for COVID-19 mortality were analysed using univariate binomial logistic regression, generalized linear models (GLM) with the Poisson distribution. Survival curves were made using the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsOut of 200 COVID-19 patients with diabetes with a mean (SD) age of 56.1 (11.8) years, 61% were men. The median survival time was slightly lesser in male COVID-19 patients (15 days) as compared to female patients (16 days). The risk of mortality among COVID-19 patients with diabetes is increased for patients who presented with breathlessness (aRR = 4.5 (95% CI: 2.3–8.8)), had positive history of smoking (aRR = 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1–3.8)), who had CKD (aRR = 1.8 (95% CI: 1.1–2.8)) and who had cardiac illness (aRR = 1.6 (95% CI: 0.9–2.7)).ConclusionDiabetes patients with COVID-19 need to be given additional care and monitoring especially if they present with breathlessness, positive history of smoking, cardiac illness and, CKD. Public health campaigns and health education activities to control smoking is needed to reduce the COVID-19 mortality in diabetes patients.     

Diabetes as a risk factor for greater COVID-19 severity and in-hospital death: A meta-analysis of observational studies

AimsTo estimate the prevalence of established diabetes and its association with the clinical severity and in-hospital mortality associated with COVID-19.Data synthesisWe systematically searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, from 1st January 2020 to 15th May 2020, for observational studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modeling. A total of 83 eligible studies with 78,874 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled prevalence of established diabetes was 14.34% (95% CI 12.62–16.06%). However, the prevalence of diabetes was higher in non-Asian vs. Asian countries (23.34% [95% CI 16.40–30.28] vs. 11.06% [95% CI 9.73–12.39]), and in patients aged ≥60 years vs. those aged <60 years (23.30% [95% CI 19.65–26.94] vs. 8.79% [95% CI 7.56–10.02]). Pre-existing diabetes was associated with an approximate twofold higher risk of having severe/critical COVID-19 illness (n = 22 studies; random-effects odds ratio 2.10, 95% CI 1.71–2.57; I² = 41.5%) and ~threefold increased risk of in-hospital mortality (n = 15 studies; random-effects odds ratio 2.68, 95% CI 2.09–3.44; I² = 46.7%). Funnel plots and Egger's tests did not reveal any significant publication bias.ConclusionsPre-existing diabetes is significantly associated with greater risk of severe/critical illness and in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.     

The impact of obesity and dyslipidemia on Remdesivir effectiveness in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia: An observational study

Background and aimsRemdesivir (GS-5734), an inhibitor of the viral RNA-dependent, RNA polymerase was early identified as a promising therapeutic candidate against COVID-19. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of several metabolic parameters on Remdesivir effectiveness among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Methods and resultsWe conducted an observational study on patients with SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia admitted between May 2020 and September 2021 to the COVID-19 Units of Internal Medicine, Pneumology and Intensive Care of Garibaldi Hospital, Catania, Italy, and treated with Remdesivir. The “Ordinal Scale For Clinical Improvement” was used to assess patients’ clinical improvement within 28 days of hospitalization. Short-term mortality rate was also evaluated.A total of 142 patients with SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia were studied. The prevalence of obesity (20.7% vs. 41.9%, p = 0.03), the average BMI (27.1 ± 4.4 vs. 31.1 ± 6.1, p < 0.01) and the mean LDL-C levels (78 ± 19 mg/dl vs. 103 ± 18 mg/dl, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in early-improved (EI) compared to not-improved (NI) individuals. Obesity was negatively associated to clinical improvement after Remdesivir (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.17–0.97, p = 0.04). Both obesity (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.05–7.71, p = 0.04) and dyslipidemia (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.17–7.16, p = 0.03) were significantly related to patients’ mortality. Dyslipidemic subjects experienced a slower clinical improvement than non-dyslipidemic ones (Long-Rank p = 0.04).ConclusionOur study showed that unfavorable metabolic conditions such as obesity and dyslipidemia could predict a worse clinical response to Remdesivir as well as the mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Further prospective and larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.     

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased mortality and severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia – A systematic review,meta-analysis,and meta-regression

Background and aimsDiabetes Mellitus (DM) is chronic conditions with devastating multi-systemic complication and may be associated with severe form of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association between DM and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsSystematic literature search was performed from several electronic databases on subjects that assess DM and outcome in COVID-19 pneumonia. The outcome of interest was composite poor outcome, including mortality, severe COVID-19, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), need for intensive care unit (ICU) care, and disease progression.ResultsThere were a total of 6452 patients from 30 studies. Meta-analysis showed that DM was associated with composite poor outcome (RR 2.38 [1.88, 3.03], p < 0.001; I²: 62%) and its subgroup which comprised of mortality (RR 2.12 [1.44, 3.11], p < 0.001; I²: 72%), severe COVID-19 (RR 2.45 [1.79, 3.35], p < 0.001; I²: 45%), ARDS (RR 4.64 [1.86, 11.58], p = 0.001; I²: 9%), and disease progression (RR 3.31 [1.08, 10.14], p = 0.04; I²: 0%). Meta-regression showed that the association with composite poor outcome was influenced by age (p = 0.003) and hypertension (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the association was weaker in studies with median age ≥55 years-old (RR 1.92) compared to <55 years-old (RR 3.48), and in prevalence of hypertension ≥25% (RR 1.93) compared to <25% (RR 3.06). Subgroup analysis on median age <55 years-old and prevalence of hypertension <25% showed strong association (RR 3.33)ConclusionDM was associated with mortality, severe COVID-19, ARDS, and disease progression in patients with COVID-19.     

Effect of colchicine on mortality in patients with COVID-19 – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the latest evidence on the association between colchicine and mortality in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search from the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, EuropePMC, and Clinicaltrials.gov up until 02 January 2022. We include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting colchicine use in patients with COVID-19 and mortality within 30 days. The intervention group was patients given colchicine during the course of treatment. The control group was patients given placebo or standard of care at the respective institutions. The outcome was mortality. The effect estimate was reported as risk ratio (RR).ResultsThere were 12 studies comprising of 6953 patients included in this meta-analysis. Mortality rate was 0.18 [95%CI 0.10, 0.26] in the colchicine group and 0.26 [95%CI 0.15, 0.38] in the control group. Colchicine was associated with reduction in mortality (RR 0.66 [95%CI 0.53, 0.83], p < 0.001; I²: 42%). Sensitivity analysis using fixed-effect model (RR 0.73 [95%CI 0.63, 0.83], p < 0.001; I²: 42%. Subgroup analysis on the four RCTs showed non-significant result (RR 0.81 [95%CI 0.54, 1.20], p = 0.29; I²: 10%). Meta-regression showed that the association between colchicine and reduced mortality was not affected by age (p = 0.613) [Fig. 3], sex (p = 0.915), diabetes (p = 0.795), and hypertension (p = 0.403).ConclusionThough the meta-analysis showed decreased mortality with colchicine in patients with COVID-19, the meta-analysis of randomized trials did not show any significant effect of colchicine on mortality.     

Association of calcium channel blocker use with clinical outcome of COVID-19: A meta-analysis

AimsThis meta-analysis aims to analyze the association of calcium channel blocker (CCB) use with COVID-19 clinical outcomes.MethodsPubMed, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were searched systematically in a limited period. The primary outcome was mortality.ResultsA total of 119,298 patients from 31 eligible studies were included. Pooled analysis of the random-effect model revealed CCB was not associated with reduced mortality (OR = 1.21 [95%CI: 0.98–1.49], p = 0.08). Interestingly, subgroup analysis in hypertensive patients revealed significantly reduced mortality (OR = 0.69 [95%CI: 0.52–0.91], p = 0.009).ConclusionCCB usage was not associated with the outcome of COVID-19. However, CCB was associated with a decreased mortality rate in hypertensive COVID-19 patients.     

Prognostic significance of preoperative PNI and CA19-9 for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A multi-institutional retrospective study

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the clinical value of nutritional and immunological prognostic scores as predictors of outcomes and to identify the most promising scoring system for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in a multi-institutional study.MethodsData were retrospectively collected for 589 patients who underwent surgical resection for PDAC. Prognostic analyses were performed for overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) using tumor and patient-related factors, namely neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), modified GPS, C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio, Controlling Nutritional Status score, and the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index.ResultsCompared with PDAC patients with high PNI values (≥46), low PNI (<46) patients showed significantly worse overall survival (OS) (multivariate hazard ratio (HR), 1.432; 95% CI, 1.069–1.918; p = 0.0161) and RFS (multivariate HR, 1.339; 95% CI, 1.032–1.736; p = 0.0277). High carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA19-9) values (≥450) were significantly correlated with shorter OS (multivariate HR, 1.520; 95% CI, 1.261–2.080; p = 0.0002) and RFS (multivariate HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.199–1.961; p = 0.0007). Stratification according to PNI and CA19-9 was also significantly associated with OS and RFS (log rank, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsOur large cohort study showed that PNI and CA19-9 were associated with poor clinical outcomes in PDAC patients following surgical resection. Additionally, combining PNI with CA19-9 enabled further classification of patients according to their clinical outcomes.     

Long-Term Outcomes in Women and Men Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundStudies examining sex-related outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting results.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the sex-related risk of 5-year cardiovascular outcomes after PCI.MethodsThe authors pooled patient-level data from 21 randomized PCI trials and assessed the association between sex and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [ID-TLR]) as well as its individual components at 5 years.ResultsAmong 32,877 patients, 9,141 (27.8%) were women. Women were older and had higher body mass index, more frequent hypertension and diabetes, and less frequent history of surgical or percutaneous revascularization compared with men. By angiographic core laboratory analysis, lesions in women had smaller reference vessel diameter and shorter lesion length. At 5 years, women had a higher unadjusted rate of MACE (18.9% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.003), all-cause death (10.4% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.0008), cardiac death (4.9% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.003) and ID-TLR (10.9% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.02) compared with men. By multivariable analysis, female sex was an independent predictor of MACE (hazard ratio [HR:]: 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI:]: 1.01 to 1.30; p = 0.04) and ID-TLR (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.44; p = 0.009) but not all-cause death (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.09; p = 0.30) or cardiac death (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.29; p = 0.85).ConclusionsIn the present large-scale, individual patient data pooled analysis of contemporary PCI trials, women had a higher risk of MACE and ID-TLR compared with men at 5 years following PCI.     

International Prospective Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients With COVID-19

BackgroundPublished data suggest worse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and concurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Mechanisms remain unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to report the demographics, angiographic findings, and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 ACS patients and compare these with pre–COVID-19 cohorts.MethodsFrom March 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020, data from 55 international centers were entered into a prospective, COVID-ACS Registry. Patients were COVID-19 positive (or had a high index of clinical suspicion) and underwent invasive coronary angiography for suspected ACS. Outcomes were in-hospital major cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, re–myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or stent thrombosis). Results were compared with national pre–COVID-19 databases (MINAP [Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project] 2019 and BCIS [British Cardiovascular Intervention Society] 2018 to 2019).ResultsIn 144 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 121 non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients, symptom-to-admission times were significantly prolonged (COVID-STEMI vs. BCIS: median 339.0 min vs. 173.0 min; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS vs. MINAP: 417.0 min vs. 295.0 min; p = 0.012). Mortality in COVID-ACS patients was significantly higher than BCIS/MINAP control subjects in both subgroups (COVID-STEMI: 22.9% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS: 6.6% vs. 1.2%; p < 0.001), which remained following multivariate propensity analysis adjusting for comorbidities (STEMI subgroup odds ratio: 3.33 [95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 5.42]). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 20.1% of COVID-STEMI patients versus 8.7% of BCIS patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this multicenter international registry, COVID-19–positive ACS patients presented later and had increased in-hospital mortality compared with a pre–COVID-19 ACS population. Excessive rates of and mortality from cardiogenic shock were major contributors to the worse outcomes in COVID-19 positive STEMI patients.