-
1.
Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.
Yu, M, Wang, DC, Li, S, Lei, YH, Wei, J, Huang, LY
Journal of medical virology. 2022;(4):1513-1522
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.
-
2.
Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin versus Liraglutide in Patients with Overweight or Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial in Tianjin, China.
Zhaohu, H, Xiao, H, Hailin, S, Feng, H
Journal of diabetes research. 2022;:4126995
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We aimed to clarify the efficacy of dapagliflozin versus liraglutide in patients with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS T2DM patients with overweight or obesity who visited the Metabolic Disease Management Center at Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital from October 2019 to January 2020 were recruited and randomised to receive dapagliflozin or liraglutide for 24 weeks. Changes in blood glucose and lipid levels, blood pressure, and body weight, as well as the occurrence of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events, were compared. RESULTS 309 patients completed the study (143 in liraglutide group and 166 in dapagliflozin group). After 24 weeks, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FPG), and 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG) levels significantly decreased from 8.80% ± 1.41% to 7.02% ± 1.05%, 10.41 ± 3.13 to 7.59 ± 2.16 mmol/L, and 17.90 ± 4.39 to 10.12 ± 2.47 mmol/L, respectively, in the dapagliflozin group, and from 8.92% ± 1.49% to 6.78% ± 1.00%, 10.04 ± 2.99 to 7.20 ± 1.63 mmol/L, and 17.30 ± 4.39 to 10.13 ± 4.15 mmol/L, respectively, in the liraglutide group. Changes in HbA1c, FPG, and 2hPG levels between groups were not significantly different. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level significantly decreased from 144.1 ± 19.1 to 139.7 ± 16.2 mmHg (p = 0.001) and from 3.21 ± 0.94 to 2.98 ± 0.89 mmol/L (p = 0.014), respectively, in the dapagliflozin group. After COVID-19 outbreak, the number of patients taking sleep-promoting drugs increased from 4.9% to 9.4% (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS Liraglutide and dapagliflozin had strong hypoglycaemic effects in patients with overweight or obesity and T2DM at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dapagliflozin may be beneficial in improving SBP and LDL-C levels; however, further research is warranted.
-
3.
Chinese Medicine Meets Conventional Medicine in Targeting COVID-19 Pathophysiology, Complications and Comorbidities.
Wang, SS, Zeng, X, Wang, YL, Dongzhi, Z, Zhao, YF, Chen, YZ
Chinese journal of integrative medicine. 2022;(7):627-635
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate how the National Health Commission of China (NHCC)-recommended Chinese medicines (CMs) modulate the major maladjustments of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly the clinically observed complications and comorbidities. METHODS By focusing on the potent targets in common with the conventional medicines, we investigated the mechanisms of 11 NHCC-recommended CMs in the modulation of the major COVID-19 pathophysiology (hyperinflammations, viral replication), complications (pain, headache) and comorbidities (hypertension, obesity, diabetes). The constituent herbs of these CMs and their chemical ingredients were from the Traditional Chinese Medicine Information Database. The experimentally-determined targets and the activity values of the chemical ingredients of these CMs were from the Natural Product Activity and Species Source Database. The approved and clinical trial drugs against these targets were searched from the Therapeutic Target Database and DrugBank Database. Pathways of the targets was obtained from Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes and additional literature search. RESULTS Overall, 9 CMs modulated 6 targets discovered by the COVID-19 target discovery studies, 8 and 11 CMs modulated 8 and 6 targets of the approved or clinical trial drugs for the treatment of the major COVID-19 complications and comorbidities, respectively. CONCLUSION The coordinated actions of each NHCC-recommended CM against a few targets of the major COVID-19 pathophysiology, complications and comorbidities, partly have common mechanisms with the conventional medicines.
-
4.
Prospective predictive performance comparison between clinical gestalt and validated COVID-19 mortality scores.
Soto-Mota, A, Marfil-Garza, BA, Castiello-de Obeso, S, Martinez Rodriguez, EJ, Carrillo Vazquez, DA, Tadeo-Espinoza, H, Guerrero Cabrera, JP, Dardon-Fierro, FE, Escobar-Valderrama, JM, Alanis-Mendizabal, J, et al
Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research. 2022;(2):415-420
Abstract
Most COVID-19 mortality scores were developed at the beginning of the pandemic and clinicians now have more experience and evidence-based interventions. Therefore, we hypothesized that the predictive performance of COVID-19 mortality scores is now lower than originally reported. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the current predictive accuracy of six COVID-19 scores and compared it with the accuracy of clinical gestalt predictions. 200 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a tertiary hospital in Mexico City between September and December 2020. The area under the curve (AUC) of the LOW-HARM, qSOFA, MSL-COVID-19, NUTRI-CoV, and NEWS2 scores and the AUC of clinical gestalt predictions of death (as a percentage) were determined. In total, 166 patients (106 men and 60 women aged 56±9 years) with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The AUC of all scores was significantly lower than originally reported: LOW-HARM 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) vs 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), qSOFA 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.69) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81), MSL-COVID-19 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) vs 0.72 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.75), NUTRI-CoV 0.60 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) vs 0.79 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82), NEWS2 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75) vs 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.85). Clinical gestalt predictions were non-inferior to mortality scores, with an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77). Adjusting scores with locally derived likelihood ratios did not improve their performance; however, some scores outperformed clinical gestalt predictions when clinicians' confidence of prediction was <80%. Despite its subjective nature, clinical gestalt has relevant advantages in predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes. The need and performance of most COVID-19 mortality scores need to be evaluated regularly.
-
5.
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION AND PROGNOSTIC UTILITY OF NEURONAL INJURY BIOMARKERS IN COVID-19 PATIENTS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY.
Vrettou, CS, Vassiliou, AG, Pratikaki, M, Keskinidou, C, Tsipilis, S, Gallos, P, Jahaj, E, Orfanos, SE, Kotanidou, A, Dimopoulou, I
Shock (Augusta, Ga.). 2022;(6):507-513
Abstract
Background : COVID-19 disease severity markers include mostly molecules related to not only tissue perfusion, inflammation, and thrombosis, but also biomarkers of neural injury. Clinical and basic research has demonstrated that SARS-COV-2 affects the central nervous system. The aims of the present study were to investigate the role of neural injury biomarkers and to compare them with inflammatory markers in their predictive ability of mortality. Methods : We conducted a prospective observational study in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and in a cohort of patients with moderate/severe disease. S100b, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and inflammatory markers, including soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), were measured on intensive care unit or ward admission, respectively. Statistical comparisons between patient groups were performed for all biomarkers under investigation. Correlations between different biomarkers were tested with Spearman correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted using mortality as the classification variable and the biomarker levels on admission as the prognostic variables. Results : A total of 70 patients with COVID-19 were included in the final analysis. Of all studied biomarkers, s100b had the best predictive ability for death in the intensive care unit, with an area under the curve of 0.73 (0.61-0.83), P = 0.0003. S100b levels correlated with NSE, interleukin (IL)-8, and IL-10 (0.27 < rs < 0.37, P < 0.05), and tended to correlate with suPAR ( rs = 0.26, P = 0.05), but not with the vasopressor dose ( P = 0.62). Conclusion : Among the investigated biomarkers, s100b demonstrated the best predictive ability for death in COVID-19 patients. The overall biomarker profile of the patients implies direct involvement of the nervous system by the novel coronavirus.
-
6.
Evaluation of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Children 6 Months to 5 Years of Age.
Anderson, EJ, Creech, CB, Berthaud, V, Piramzadian, A, Johnson, KA, Zervos, M, Garner, F, Griffin, C, Palanpurwala, K, Turner, M, et al
The New England journal of medicine. 2022;(18):1673-1687
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine in young children are unknown. METHODS Part 1 of this ongoing phase 2-3 trial was open label for dose selection; part 2 was an observer-blinded, placebo-controlled evaluation of the selected dose. In part 2, we randomly assigned young children (6 months to 5 years of age) in a 3:1 ratio to receive two 25-μg injections of mRNA-1273 or placebo, administered 28 days apart. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine and to determine whether the immune response in these children was noninferior to that in young adults (18 to 25 years of age) in a related phase 3 trial. Secondary objectives were to determine the incidences of Covid-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection after administration of mRNA-1273 or placebo. RESULTS On the basis of safety and immunogenicity results in part 1 of the trial, the 25-μg dose was evaluated in part 2. In part 2, 3040 children 2 to 5 years of age and 1762 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive two 25-μg injections of mRNA-1273; 1008 children 2 to 5 years of age and 593 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive placebo. The median duration of follow-up after the second injection was 71 days in the 2-to-5-year-old cohort and 68 days in the 6-to-23-month-old cohort. Adverse events were mainly low-grade and transient, and no new safety concerns were identified. At day 57, neutralizing antibody geometric mean concentrations were 1410 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1272 to 1563) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 1781 (95% CI, 1616 to 1962) among 6-to-23-month-olds, as compared with 1391 (95% CI, 1263 to 1531) among young adults, who had received 100-μg injections of mRNA-1273, findings that met the noninferiority criteria for immune responses for both age cohorts. The estimated vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 36.8% (95% CI, 12.5 to 54.0) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 50.6% (95% CI, 21.4 to 68.6) among 6-to-23-month-olds, at a time when B.1.1.529 (omicron) was the predominant circulating variant. CONCLUSIONS Two 25-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe in children 6 months to 5 years of age and elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those in young adults. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; KidCOVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796896.).
-
7.
Comparison between Nutric Score and modified nutric score to assess ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
Liberti, A, Piacentino, E, Umbrello, M, Muttini, S
Clinical nutrition ESPEN. 2021;:479-482
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill (NUTRIC score) and modified Nutric score (mNUTRIC score) have been validated as screening tool for quantifying risk of adverse outcome in patients admitted in intensive care department. They differ for the measurement of IL-6 levels. In patients with COVID-19 disease the inflammatory response plays a crucial role leading to cytochine storm responsible of multiple organ damage. In this population, levels of IL-6 have been measured as indicator of inflammatory status. Aim of the study is to compare prognostic performance of both scores in predicting ICU mortality between patients with COVID-19 disease. METHODS A single centre, retrospective, cohort study on patients admitted in ICU with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed. Prognostic performance of NUTRIC score and mNUTRIC score were assessed and compared for discriminative abilities for ICU-mortality. RESULTS 43 patients were enrolled, age 64 (55; 70), BMI 28 ± 4. Mean NUTRIC score was 2.5 ± 1, mNUTRIC was 2.6 ± 1.1. Mortality was 39.5%, all patients had low nutritional risk according to both scores (≤5 and ≤ 4 for NUTRIC and mNUTRIC score respectively). The discriminative ability of Nutric Score for ICU mortality was 0.675 (95% CI: 0.524-0.825), while that of mNutric score was 0.655 (0.513-0.861), p = 0.667. CONCLUSIONS Prognostic performance of Nutric score and mNutric score is comparable, but the discriminative ability is low even in patients with high inflammatory status as in COVID-19 affected population. These scores may not be appropriate in patients with COVID-19 for the determination of nutritional risk.
-
8.
Calcifediol Treatment and Hospital Mortality Due to COVID-19: A Cohort Study.
Alcala-Diaz, JF, Limia-Perez, L, Gomez-Huelgas, R, Martin-Escalante, MD, Cortes-Rodriguez, B, Zambrana-Garcia, JL, Entrenas-Castillo, M, Perez-Caballero, AI, López-Carmona, MD, Garcia-Alegria, J, et al
Nutrients. 2021;(6)
Abstract
CONTEXT Calcifediol has been proposed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE To compare the administration or not of oral calcifediol on mortality risk of patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. DESIGN Retrospective, multicenter, open, non-randomized cohort study. SETTINGS Hospitalized care. PATIENTS Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 5 February and 5 May 2020 in five hospitals in the South of Spain. INTERVENTION Patients received calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) treatment (0.266 mg/capsule, 2 capsules on entry and then one capsule on day 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28) or not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE In-hospital mortality during the first 30 days after admission. RESULTS A total of 537 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 (317 males (59%), median age, 70 years), and 79 (14.7%) received calcifediol treatment. Overall, in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days was 17.5%. The OR of death for patients receiving calcifediol (mortality rate of 5%) was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61) compared to patients not receiving such treatment (mortality rate of 20%; p < 0.01). Patients who received calcifediol after admission were more likely than those not receiving treatment to have comorbidity and a lower rate of CURB-65 score for pneumonia severity ≥ 3 (one point for each of confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mm Hg, and age ≥ 65 years), acute respiratory distress syndrome (moderate or severe), c-reactive protein, chronic kidney disease, and blood urea nitrogen. In a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for confounders, there were significant differences in mortality for patients receiving calcifediol compared with patients not receiving it (OR = 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.80). CONCLUSION Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol, compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days. The observational design and sample size may limit the interpretation of these findings.
-
9.
Comparison of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors with other antihypertensives in association with coronavirus disease-19 clinical outcomes.
Bezabih, YM, Bezabih, A, Alamneh, E, Peterson, GM, Bezabhe, W
BMC infectious diseases. 2021;(1):527
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reports on the effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We performed this meta-analysis to find conclusive evidence. METHODS We searched published articles through PubMed, EMBASE and medRxiv from 5 January 2020 to 3 August 2020. Studies that reported clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of antihypertensives, were included. Random and fixed-effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR). RESULTS A total 36 studies involving 30,795 patients with COVID-19 were included. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: [0.67, 0.95]) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. However, further sub-meta-analysis showed that specific RAAS inhibitors did not show a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes when compared with any class of antihypertensive except beta-blockers (BBs). For example, compared to calcium channel blockers (CCBs), neither angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.67, 1.23]) nor angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: [0.62, 1.33]) showed a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes. When compared with BBs, however, both ACEIs (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.99) and ARBs (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.55, 0.94]) showed an apparent decrease in poor COVID-19 outcomes. CONCLUSIONS RAAS inhibitors did not increase the risk of mortality or severity of COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 clinical outcomes between different class of antihypertensive drugs were likely due to the underlying comorbidities for which the antihypertensive drugs were prescribed, although adverse effects of drugs such as BBs could not be excluded.
-
10.
The US Strategic National Stockpile Ventilators in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Comparison of Functionality and Analysis Regarding the Emergency Purchase of 200,000 Devices.
Branson, R, Dichter, JR, Feldman, H, Devereaux, A, Dries, D, Benditt, J, Hossain, T, Ghazipura, M, King, M, Baldisseri, M, et al
Chest. 2021;(2):634-652
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was serious concern that the United States would encounter a shortfall of mechanical ventilators. In response, the US government, using the Defense Production Act, ordered the development of 200,000 ventilators from 11 different manufacturers. These ventilators have different capabilities, and whether all are able to support COVID-19 patients is not evident. RESEARCH QUESTION Evaluate ventilator requirements for affected COVID-19 patients, assess the clinical performance of current US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) ventilators employed during the pandemic, and finally, compare ordered ventilators' functionality based on COVID-19 patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Current published literature, publicly available documents, and lay press articles were reviewed by a diverse team of disaster experts. Data were assembled into tabular format, which formed the basis for analysis and future recommendations. RESULTS COVID-19 patients often develop severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and adult respiratory defense syndrome (ARDS), requiring high levels of ventilator support. Current SNS ventilators were unable to fully support all COVID-19 patients, and only approximately half of newly ordered ventilators have the capacity to support the most severely affected patients; ventilators with less capacity for providing high-level support are still of significant value in caring for many patients. INTERPRETATION Current SNS ventilators and those on order are capable of supporting most but not all COVID-19 patients. Technologic, logistic, and educational challenges encountered from current SNS ventilators are summarized, with potential next-generation SNS ventilator updates offered.