IFI27 transcription is an early predictor for COVID-19 outcomes; a multi-cohort observational study (preprint)

Background. Robust biomarkers that predict disease outcomes amongst COVID19 patients are necessary for both patient triage and resource prioritisation. Numerous candidate biomarkers have been proposed for COVID19. However, at present, there is no consensus on the best diagnostic approach to predict outcomes in infected patients. Moreover, it is not clear whether such tools would apply to other potentially pandemic pathogens and therefore of use as stockpile for future pandemic preparedness. Methods. We conducted a multi cohort observational study to investigate the biology and the prognostic role of interferon alpha inducible protein 27 (IFI27) in COVID19 patients. Findings. We show that IFI27 is expressed in the respiratory tract of COVID19 patients and elevated IFI27 expression is associated with the presence of a high viral load. We further demonstrate that systemic host response, as measured by blood IFI27 expression, is associated with COVID19 severity. For clinical outcome prediction (e.g. respiratory failure), IFI27 expression displays a high positive (0.83) and negative (0.95) predictive value, outperforming all other known predictors of COVID19 severity. Furthermore, IFI27 is upregulated in the blood of infected patients in response to other respiratory viruses. For example, in the pandemic H1N1/09 swine influenza virus infection, IFI27 like genes were highly upregulated in the blood samples of severely infected patients. Interpretation. These data suggest that prognostic biomarkers targeting the family of IFI27 genes could potentially supplement conventional diagnostic tools in future virus pandemics, independent of whether such pandemics are caused by a coronavirus, an influenza virus or another as yet to be discovered respiratory virus.

The Role of Vitamin D in The Age of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Along with an Ecological Approach (preprint)

Background: Following emerge of a novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has affected the whole world and after months of efforts by the medical communities, there is still no specific approach for prevention and treatment against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be an important supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID-19. Hence, we carried out a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis along with an ecological investigation in order to maximize the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar (intitle) as well as preprint database of medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, preprints.org, search engine of ScienceDirect and a rapid search through famous journals up to May 26, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Along with our main aim, to find the second objective: correlation of global vitamin D status and COVID-19 recovery and mortality we carried out a literature search in PubMed database to identify the national or regional studies reported the vitamin D status globally. CMA v. 2.2.064 and SPSS v.16 were used for data analysis. Results: Out of nine studies entered into our systematic review, six studies containing 3,822 participants entered into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that 46.5% of COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 28.2%-65.8%) and in 43.3% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 27.4%-60.8%). In regard to our ecological investigation on 51 countries including 408,748 participants, analyses indicated no correlation between vitamin D levels and recovery rate (r= 0.041) as well as mortality rate (r=-0.073) globally. However, given latitude, a small reverse correlation between mortality rate and vitamin D status was observed throughout the globe (r= -0.177). In Asia, a medium direct correlation was observed for recovery rate (r= 0.317) and a significant reveres correlation for mortality rate (r= -0.700) with vitamin D status in such patients. In Europe, there were no correlations for both recovery (r= 0.040) and mortality rate (r= -0.035). In Middle East, the recovery rate (r= 0.267) and mortality rate (r= -0.217) showed a medium correlation. In North and Sought America, surprisingly, both recovery and mortality rate demonstrated a direct correlation respectively (r= 1.000, r=0.500). In Oceania, unexpectedly, recovery (r= -1.000) and mortality (r= -1.000) rates were in considerable reverse correlation with vitamin D levels. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with an ecological approach, we found a high percentage of COVID-19 patients who suffer from vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Much more important, our ecological investigation resulted in substantial direct and reverse correlations between recovery and mortality rates of COVID-19 patients with vitamin D status in different countries. Considering latitudes, a small reverse correlation between vitamin D status and mortality rate was found globally. It seems that populations with lower levels of vitamin D might be more susceptible to the novel coronavirus infection. Nevertheless, due to multiple limitations, if this study does not allow to quantify a value of the Vitamin D with full confidence, it allows at least to know what the Vitamin D might be and that it would be prudent to invest in this direction through comprehensive large randomized clinical trials.

Hydroxychloroquine Versus COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (preprint)

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis overcome the controversies regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine up to July 19, 2020. Studies focused on the effectiveness of HCQ with/without azithromycin (AZM) in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the study. Two researchers have independently evaluated quality assessment of the studies and abstracted data for data extraction. Extracted data were analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test, and fixed/random-effects model was used when appropriate for pooling of studies. Results: Out of 26 studies entered into our systematic review, 21 studies including 14 comparative studies with control group and seven observational studies containing 103,486 participants have entered into the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis on comparative studies indicated no significant clinical effectiveness (negative in RT-PCR evaluation) for HCQ regimen in the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to control group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI, 0.79-1.34). The same result was observed for the combination of HCQ+azithromycin (RR: 1.26, 95% CI, 0.91-1.74). No significant differences were found for both HCQ (RR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.72-1.16) and HCQ+AZM (RR: 1.72, 95% CI, 0.86-3.42) mortality rate; however, mortality was affected by age differences according to meta-regression analysis (P<0.000001). No substantial difference was observed for disease exacerbation (RR: 1.23, 95% CI, 0.65-2.30) between HCQ group and controls. Also, radiological findings significantly improved in the HCQ group (OR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.11-0.98). Odds of known HCQ adverse effects (diarrhea, vomiting, blurred vision, rash, headache, etc.) occurred in the HCQ regimen group was approximately 3.5 times of control group (OR: 3.40, 95% CI, 1.65-6.98), but no substantial differences were found regarding intubation odds between HCQ group and control group (OR: 2.11, 95% CI, 0.31-14.03). Meta-analysis indicated no significant prophylactic effects for HCQ (OR: 0.40, 95% CI, 0.04-3.65) Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no clinical benefits regarding HCQ treatment with/without azithromycin for COVID-19 patients. Although mortality rate was not significantly different between cases and controls, frequency of adverse effects was substantially higher in HCQ regimen group. However, due to that most of the studies were non-randomized and results were not homogenous, selection bias was unavoidable and further large randomized clinical trials following comprehensive meta-analysis should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings. Also, it is worth mentioning that if this work does not allow to quantify a "value" of the HCQ, it allows at least to know what is not the HCQ and that it would be prudent not to continue investing in this direction.

Cardiovascular Diseases and COVID-19 Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (preprint)

BackgroundHigh rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis. MethodsWe have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs. ResultsFifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. ConclusionFindings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations. Graphical abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=143 SRC="FIGDIR/small/20062869v2_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (22K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@21e53corg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@150dcc6org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1ce7f21org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1fc5fd7_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Clinical and Paraclinical Characteristics of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Introduction: Recently, a new strain of coronaviruses, which originated from Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China has been identified. According to the high prevalence of new coronavirus, further investigation on the clinical and paraclinical features of this disease seems essential. Hence, we carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis to figure out the unknown features. Methods: This study was performed using databases of Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. We considered English cross-sectional and case-series papers which reported clinical, radiological, and laboratory characteristics of patients with COVID-19. We used STATA v.11 and random effect model for data analysis. Results: In the present meta-analysis, 32 papers including 49504 COVID-19 patients were studied. The most common clinical symptoms were fever (84%), cough (65%) and fatigue (42%), respectively. The most common radiological and paraclinical features were bilateral pneumonia (61%), ground-glass opacity (50%), thrombocytopenia (36%) and lymphocytopenia (34%). The study also showed that the frequency of comorbidities and early symptoms was higher in critically severe patients. Moreover, we found the overall mortality rate of three percent. Conclusion: According to that there are many cases without Computed Tomography Scan findings or clear clinical symptoms, it is recommended to use other confirming methods such RNA sequencing in order to identification of suspicious undiagnosed patients. Moreover, while there is no access to clinical and paraclinical facilities in in public places such as airports and border crossings, it is recommended to consider factors such as fever, cough, sputum and fatigue.