Impact of Intensive Care Unit bed shortage on the short-term outcomes of major liver surgery during the pandemic: better safe than sorry?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative criteria to establish the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission after major liver surgery have not been yet precisely defined and are often left to the anesthesiologist's judgment. The ICU bed shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems around the world. We sought to determine its impact on early outcomes of elective major liver surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing major oncological liver surgery from a single institution. Two time periods were compared considering a complete ban on ICU beds during the pandemic (index period, from November 2020 to May 2021), and the smoothly running ICU facility before the pandemic (control period, from November 2018 to October 2020). The main outcomes were 30-day morbidity and mortality, length-of-stay, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: Overall, 57 consecutive patients were identified, of whom 18 (32%) in the index period, and 39 (68%) in the control period, with 24 (62%) patients in the latter group admitted to ICU. No significant differences were found in terms of ASA score, P-POSSUM morbidity and mortality, operative times, and red blood cells transfusions between groups. The morbidity rate, as classified by the Clavien-Dindo system, was also similar. A slightly longer length-of-stay has been observed in the index period (mean difference of 1.12 [95%CI, -9.19;11.42] days; P=0.829) after controlling for age, gender, ASA score, and P-POSSUM. The 30-day readmission rate was comparable between the index and control periods (5.0% vs. 4.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ICU bed shortage in response to the COVID-19 emergency did not negatively impact on the early postoperative outcomes of major liver surgery.

Correction: Vital Signs During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Retrospective Analysis of 19,960 Participants in Wuhan and Four Nearby Capital Cities in China.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5334/gh.913.].

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.

Asthma and COVID-19 risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individual case series and cohort studies have reported conflicting results in people with asthma on the vulnerability to and risk of mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH QUESTION: Are people with asthma at a higher risk of being infected or hospitalised or poorer clinical outcomes from COVID-19? METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on five main databases including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database between 1 December 2019 and 11 July 2021 on studies with a control (non-asthma) group was conducted. Prevalence and risk ratios were pooled using Sidik-Jonkman random-effects meta-analyses. FINDINGS: 51 studies with an 8.08% (95% CI 6.87-9.30%) pooled prevalence of people with asthma among COVID-19 positive cases. The risk ratios were 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.95, p=0.01) for acquiring COVID-19; 1.18 (95% CI 0.98-1.42, p=0.08) for hospitalisation; 1.21 (95% CI 0.97-1.51, p=0.09) for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; 1.06 (95% CI 0.82-1.36, p=0.65) for ventilator use; and 0.94 (95% CI 0.76-1.17, p=0.58) for mortality for people with asthma. Subgroup analyses by continent revealed a significant difference in risk of acquiring COVID-19, ICU admission, ventilator use and death between the continents. INTERPRETATION: The risk of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was reduced compared to the non-asthma group. No statistically significant differences in hospitalisation, ICU admission and ventilator use were found between groups. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in outcomes from COVID-19 between America, Europe and Asia. Additional studies are required to confirm this risk profile, particularly in Africa and South America, where few studies originate.

Changes in hospital admissions and complications of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common emergencies in general surgery worldwide. During the pandemic, a significant decrease in the number of accesses to the emergency department for AA has been recorded in different countries. A systematic review of the current literature sought to determine the impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospital admissions and complications of AA. Method: A systematic search was undertaken to identify repeated cross-sectional studies reporting the management of AA during the COVID-19 pandemic (index period) as compared to the previous year, or at the turn of lockdown (reference period). Data were abstracted on article (country of origin) and patients characteristics (adults, children [i.e. non adults, <18-year-old]), or mixed population) within the two given timeframes, including demographics, number of admissions for AA, number of appendectomies, and complicated appendectomies. Results: Of 201 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 54 studies from 22 world countries were included. In total, 27 (50%) were conducted on adults, 12 (22%) on children, and 15 (28%) on a mixed patients population. The overall rate ratio of admissions for AA between the two periods was 0.94 (95%CI, 0.75-1.17), with significant differences between studies on adults (0.90 [0.74-1.09]), mixed population (0.50 [0.27-0.90]), and children (1.50 [1.01-2.22]). The overall risk ratio of complicated AA was 1.65 (1.32-2.07), ranging from 1.32 in studies on children, to 2.45 in mixed population. Conclusion: The pandemic has altered the rate of admissions for AA and appendectomy, with parallel increased incidence of complicated cases in all age groups.

Mediators of the Effects of Canagliflozin (CANA) on Heart Failure (HF) and CV Death in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

The benefits of CANA for HF in people with T2D at CV risk appeared to be statistically mediated by erythrocyte concentration, serum urate, and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) in the CANVAS Program. CANA reduced the risk of HF in patients with T2D and CKD in CREDENCE. We explored potential mediators of CANA's effects on the composite of hospitalized HF (HHF) and CV death. Mediation analyses are hypothesis-generating observational analyses that calculate the effect of selected biomarkers on the overall treatment effect using time-varying Cox regression. We compared hazard ratios for the effect of randomized treatment from an unadjusted model versus a model adjusted for the average post-randomization level of the biomarker of interest. 62 routine clinical biomarkers and vital sign indicators were collected on all participants and tested as potential mediators. When multiple potential mediators represented a single pathway, those with the strongest univariable mediation were tested in multivariable models. 12 biomarkers, including 3 markers of volume/erythropoiesis (hematocrit [24%], hemoglobin [32%], erythrocytes [27%]), 2 markers of kidney function (UACR [28%], eGFR from wk 3 [7.4%]), and serum albumin (39%), serum protein (24%), lactate dehydrogenase (13%), systolic BP (10%), urine pH (8%), serum urate (7%) and gamma glutamyltransferase (4%), mediated the effect of CANA on HHF/CV death in univariable models. In the multivariable model, hemoglobin, UACR, serum urate and systolic BP maximized cumulative mediation (74%). A diverse set of potential mediators of CANA's effect on HHF/CV death were identified with serum albumin, hemoglobin (or its analogues) and UACR being the most important. The extent to which these mediators reflect underlying inflammatory, nutritional, volume-related or cardiorenal pathways is unclear and underscores the need for further research into the mechanisms of benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors. Disclosure: J. Li: Employee;Self;George Institute. B. Neal: Research Support;Self;Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Merck Schering Plough, Roche Pharma, Servier, Zydus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other Relationship;Self;Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier. H.L. Heerspink: Consultant;Self;AbbVie Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mundipharma International, Retrophin, Inc. C. Arnott: Employee;Self;George Institute for Global Health. C. Cannon: None. R. Agarwal: Other Relationship;Self;AbbVie Inc., Akebia Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Bird Rock Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, OPKO Health, Inc., Reata, Relypsa, Inc., Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, ZS Pharma. G. Bakris: Consultant;Self;Alnylam, Merck & Co., Inc., Relypsa, Inc., Teijin Pharma Limited. Other Relationship;Self;Bayer AG, Novo Nordisk Inc., Vascular Dynamics. D.M. Charytan: Advisory Panel;Self;Allena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Merck & Co., Inc., PLC Medical. Employee;Self;BAIM Institute. Research Support;Self;Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other Relationship;Self;Baim, Amgen, Medtronic/Covidien, Zoll, Fresenius, Daiichi Sankyo, Douglas and London, Eli Lilly, Merck, Gilead, and Novo Nordisk. D. de Zeeuw: Advisory Panel;Self;AbbVie Inc., Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Fresenius Medical Care, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. T. Greene: Other Relationship;Self;Janssen, Durect, and Pfizer. A. Levin: Consultant;Self;Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support;Self;AstraZeneca K.K., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc. R. Oh: Employee;Self;Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. C.A. Pollock: Advisory Panel;Self;AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma euticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Vifor Pharma Group. Research Support;Self;Diabetes Australia. Speaker's Bureau;Self;AstraZeneca, Cipla Inc., MedErgy, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Novartis AG, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Vifor Pharma Group. Other Relationship;Self;Amgen, George Institute for Global Health, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. D.C. Wheeler: Advisory Panel;Self;Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Reata. Consultant;Self;AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau;Self;Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Mundipharma International, Napp Pharmaceuticals. Y. Yavin: Employee;Self;Janssen Research & Development, LLC. H. Zhang: Employee;Self;Renal Division of Peking University First Hospital. B. Zinman: Advisory Panel;Self;Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. G. Di Tanna: Employee;Self;George Institute for Global Health. V. Perkovic: Other Relationship;Self;See Other Relationship field. K.W. Mahaffey: Consultant;Self;Medscape, Mitsubishi, Myokardia, NIH, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Radiometer, Regeneron, SmartMedics, Springer Publishing, UCSF. Research Support;Self;Afferent, Amgen, Apple, Inc, AstraZeneca, Cardiva Medical, Inc, Daiichi, Ferring, Google (Verily), Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, NIH, Novartis, Sanofi, St. Jude, Tenax. M. Jardine: Other Relationship;Self;See Other Relationship field. Funding: Janssen Research & Development, LLC [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Diabetes is the property of American Diabetes Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Associations between vision impairment and driving and the effectiveness of vision-related interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Driving is one of the main modes of transport with safe driving requiring a combination of visual, cognitive and physical skills. With population ageing, the number of people living with vision impairment is set to increase in the decades ahead. Vision impairment may negatively impact an individual's ability to safely drive. The association between vision impairment and motor vehicle crash involvement or driving participation has yet to be systematically investigated. Further, the evidence for the effectiveness of vision-related interventions aimed at decreasing crashes and driving errors has not been synthesised. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search will be conducted for relevant studies on Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health from their inception to March 2020 without date or geographical restrictions. Two investigators will independently screen abstracts and full texts using Covidence software with conflicts resolved by a third investigator. Data extraction will be conducted on all included studies, and their quality assessed to determine the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Outcome measures include crash risk, driving cessation and surrogate measures of driving safety (eg, driving errors and performance). The results of this review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. Meta-analysis will be undertaken for outcomes with sufficient data and reported following the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. Where statistical pooling is not feasible or appropriate, narrative summaries will be presented following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis in systematic reviews guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will only report on published data thus no ethics approval is required. Results will be included in the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health, published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020172153.

Effect of Salt Substitution on Cardiovascular Events and Death.

BACKGROUND: Salt substitutes with reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure, but their effects on cardiovascular and safety outcomes are uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving persons from 600 villages in rural China. The participants had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had high blood pressure. The villages were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride). The primary outcome was stroke, the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events and death from any cause, and the safety outcome was clinical hyperkalemia. RESULTS: A total of 20,995 persons were enrolled in the trial. The mean age of the participants was 65.4 years, and 49.5% were female, 72.6% had a history of stroke, and 88.4% a history of hypertension. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.96; P = 0.006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events (49.09 events vs. 56.29 events per 1000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001) and death (39.28 events vs. 44.61 events per 1000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P<0.001). The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.37; P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among persons who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had high blood pressure, the rates of stroke, major cardiovascular events, and death from any cause were lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; SSaSS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092090.).

Preventing adverse cardiac events (PACE) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): study protocol for a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised controlled trial of bisoprolol in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Heart disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common but neglected comorbidity. Patients with COPD are frequently excluded from clinical trials of treatments aimed at reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality, which has led to undertreatment of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. A particular concern in COPD is the underuse of beta (ß)-blockers. There is observational evidence that cardioselective ß-blockers are safe and may even reduce mortality risk in COPD, although some evidence is conflicting. There is an urgent need to answer the research question: Are cardioselective ß-blockers safe and of benefit in people with moderately severe COPD? The proposed study will investigate whether cardioselective ß-blocker treatment in patients with COPD reduces mortality and cardiac and respiratory morbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a double-blind, randomised controlled trial to be conducted in approximately 26 sites in Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka and other countries as required. Participants with COPD will be randomised to either bisoprolol once daily (range 1.25-5 mg, dependent on tolerated dose) or matched placebo, in addition to receiving usual care for their COPD over the study duration of 24 months.The study will enrol 1164 participants with moderate to severe COPD, aged 40-85 years. Participants will be symptomatic from their COPD and have a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥30% and ≤70% predicted and a history of at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics or both in the prior 24 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee at The Concord Repatriation General Hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03917914; CTRI/2020/08/027322.

What paradigm shifts occurred in the management of acute diverticulitis during the COVID-19 pandemic? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is common in Western countries, with its prevalence increasing throughout the world. As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), elective surgery and in-patients' visits have been cancelled or postponed worldwide. AIM: To systematically explore the impact of the pandemic in the management of ACD. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, MedxRiv, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to 22 December 2020. Studies which reported on the management of patients with ACD during the COVID-19 pandemic were eligible. For cross sectional studies, outcomes of interest included the number of hospital admission for ACD, as well as key features of disease severity (complicated or not) across two time periods (pre- and during lockdown). RESULTS: A total of 69 papers were inspected, and 21 were eligible for inclusion. Ten papers were cross sectional studies from seven world countries; six were case reports; three were qualitative studies, and two review articles. A 56% overall decrease in admissions for ACD was observed during lockdown, peaking 67% in the largest series. A 4%-8% decrease in the rate of uncomplicated diverticulitis was also noted during the lockdown phase. An initial non-operative management was recommended for complicated diverticulitis, and encouraged to an out-of-hospital regimen. Despite initial concerns on the use of laparoscopy for Hinchey 3 and 4 patients to avoid aerosolized contamination, societal bodies have progressively mitigated their initial recommendations as actual risks are yet to be ascertained. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer patients presented and were diagnosed with ACD. Such decline may have likely affected the spectrum of uncomplicated disease. Established outpatient management and follow up for selected cases may unburden healthcare resources in time of crisis.

Vital Signs During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Retrospective Analysis of 19,960 Participants in Wuhan and Four Nearby Capital Cities in China.

Background: The implications of city lockdown on vital signs during the COVID-19 outbreak are unknown. Objective: We longitudinally tracked vital signs using data from wearable sensors and determined associations with anxiety and depression. Methods: We selected all participants in the HUAWEI Heart Study from Wuhan and four nearby large provincial capital cities (Guangzhou, Chongqing, Hangzhou, Zhengzhou) and extracted all data from 26 December 2019 (one month before city lockdown) to 21 February 2020. Sleep duration and quality, daily steps, oxygen saturation and heart rate were collected on a daily basis. We compared the vital signs before and after the lockdown using segmented regression analysis of the interrupted time series. The depression and anxiety cases were defined as scores ≥8 on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression and anxiety subscales [HADS-D and HADS-A] in 727 participants who finished the survey. Results: We included 19,960 participants (mean age 36 yrs, 90% men). Compared with pre-lockdown, resting heart rate dropped immediately by 1.1 bpm after city lockdown (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.8, -0.4). Sleep duration increased by 0.5 hour (95% CI: 0.3, 0.8) but deep sleep ratio decreased by 0.9% (95% CI: -1.2, -0.6). Daily steps decreased by 3352 steps (95% CI: -4333, -2370). Anxiety and depression existed in 26% and 17% among 727 available participants, respectively, and associated with longer sleep duration (0.2 and 0.1 hour, both p < 0.001). Conclusions: Lockdown of Wuhan in China was associated with an adverse vital signs profile (reduced physical activity, heart rate, and sleep quality, but increased sleep duration). Wearable devices in combination with mobile-based apps may be useful to monitor both physical and mental health. Clinical trial registration: The trial is registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) website (ChiCTR-OOC-17014138).

E-consensus on telemedicine in colorectal surgery: a RAND/UCLA-modified study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is revolutionizing healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to reach consensus among experts on the possible applications of telemedicine in colorectal surgery. A group of 48 clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) was developed by a clinical guidance group based on coalescence of evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine in Colorectal Surgery Italian Working Group included 54 colorectal surgeons affiliated to the Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery (SICCR) who were involved in the evaluation of the appropriateness of each CPR, based on published RAND/UCLA methodology, in two rounds. Stakeholders' median age was 44.5 (IQR 36-60) years, and 44 (81%) were males. Agreement was obtained on the applicability of telemonitoring and telemedicine for multidisciplinary pre-operative evaluation. The panel voted against the use of telemedicine for a first consultation. 15/48 statements deemed uncertain on round 1 and were re-elaborated and assessed by 51/54 (94%) panelists on round 2. Consensus was achieved in all but one statement concerning the cost of a teleconsultation. There was strong agreement on the usefulness of teleconsultation during follow-up of patients with diverticular disease after an in-person visit. This e-consensus provides the boundaries of telemedicine in colorectal surgery in Italy. Standardization of infrastructures and costs remains to be better elucidated.

Asthma and risk of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and mortality from COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As COVID-19 spreads across the world, there are concerns that people with asthma are at a higher risk of acquiring the disease, or of poorer outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence on the risk of infection, severe illness and death from COVID-19 in people with asthma. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search of electronic databases including preprint repositories and WHO COVID-19 database was conducted (until 26 May 2020). Studies reporting COVID-19 in people with asthma were included. For binary outcomes, we performed Sidik-Jonkman random effects meta-analysis. We explored quantitative heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, meta regression and evaluating the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies with an overall sample size of 587 280 were included. The prevalence of asthma among those infected with COVID-19 was 7.46% (95% CI = 6.25-8.67). Non-severe asthma was more common than severe asthma (9.61% vs. 4.13%). Pooled analysis showed a 14% risk ratio reduction in acquiring COVID-19 (95% CI = 0.80-0.94; p < 0.0001) and 13% reduction in hospitalization with COVID-19 (95% CI = 0.77-0.99, p = 0.03) for people with asthma compared with those without. There was no significant difference in the combined risk of requiring admission to ICU and/or receiving mechanical ventilation for people with asthma (RR = 0.87 95% CI = 0.94-1.37; p = 0.19) and risk of death from COVID-19 (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.68-1.10; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that the prevalence of people with asthma among COVID-19 patients is similar to the global prevalence of asthma. The overall findings suggest that people with asthma have a lower risk than those without asthma for acquiring COVID-19 and have similar clinical outcomes.

E-consensus on telemedicine in proctology: A RAND/UCLA-modified study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 is revolutionizing healthcare delivery. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus among experts as to the possible applications of telemedicine in the proctologic field. METHODS: A group of 55 clinical practice recommendations was developed by a clinical guidance group based on coalescence of evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine in Proctology Italian Working Group included 47 Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery nominated experts evaluating the appropriateness of each clinical practice recommendations based on published RAND/UCLA methodology in 2 rounds. RESULTS: Stakeholder median age was 53 years (interquartile range limits 40-60), and 38 (81%) were men. Nine (19%) panelists reported no experience with telemedicine before the pandemic. Agreement was obtained on a minimum of 3 to 5 years of practice in the proctologic field before starting teleconsultations, which should be regularly paid, with advice and prescriptions incorporated into a formal report sent to the patient by e-mail along with a receipt. Of the panelists, 35 of 47 (74%) agreed that teleconsultation carries the risk of misdiagnosis of cancer, thus recommending an in-person assessment before scheduling any surgery. Fifteen additional clinical practice recommendations were re-elaborated in the second round and assessed by 44 of 47 (93.6%) panelists. The application of telemedicine for the diagnosis of common proctologic conditions (eg, hemorrhoidal disease, anal abscess and fistula, anal condylomas, and anal fissure) and functional pelvic floor disorders was generally considered inappropriate. Teleconsultation was instead deemed appropriate for the diagnosis and management of pilonidal disease. CONCLUSION: This e-consensus revealed the boundaries of telemedicine in Italy. Standardization of infrastructures, logistics, and legality remain to be better elucidated.

DElayed COloRectal cancer care during COVID-19 Pandemic (DECOR-19): Global perspective from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer care during the pandemic. METHODS: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of colorectal cancer patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in colorectal cancer care. Respondents were divided into 2 comparator groups: (1) "delay" group: colorectal cancer care affected by the pandemic and (2) "no delay" group: unaltered colorectal cancer practice. RESULTS: A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the delay (745, 70.9%) and no delay (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units, units fully dedicated to coronavirus disease 2019 care, and personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology, and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the delay group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan, and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of colorectal cancer care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in coronavirus disease-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units were statistically associated with unaltered colorectal cancer care in the no delay group, while the geographic distribution was not. CONCLUSION: Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic colorectal cancer practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health care delivery systems, hospital's preparedness, resource availability, and local coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence rather than geographic factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize colorectal cancer care.

A worldwide survey on proctological practice during COVID-19 lockdown (ProctoLock 2020): a cross-sectional analysis.

AIM: Proctology is one of the surgical specialties that has suffered the most during COVID-19 pandemic. Using a cross-sectional non-incentivised World Wide Web survey, we aimed to snapshot the current status of proctological practice in six world regions. METHOD: Surgeons affiliated to renowned scientific societies with an interest in coloproctology were invited to join the survey. Members of the ProctoLock Working Group enhanced recruitment by direct invitation. The predictive power of respondents' and hospitals' demographics on the change of status of surgical and outpatient activities was calculated. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 1050) were mostly men (79%), with a mean age of 46.9 years, at consultant level (79%), practising in academic hospitals (53%) offering a dedicated proctology service (68%). A total of 119 (11%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The majority (54%) came from Europe. Participants from Asia reported a higher proportion of unaltered practice (17%), while those from Europe had the highest proportion of fully stopped practice (20%). The likelihood of ongoing surgical practice was higher in men (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13-2.09; P = 0.006), in those reporting readily availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) (OR 1.40, 1.08-1.42; P = 0.012) and in centres that were partially or not at all involved in COVID-19 care (OR 2.95, 2.14-4.09; P < 0.001). This chance decreased by 2% per year of respondent's age (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Several factors including different screening policies and resource capacity affected the current status of proctological practice. This information may help health authorities to formulate effective preventive strategies to limit curtailment of care of these patients during the pandemic.

Deadlock of proctologic practice in Italy during COVID-19 pandemic: a national report from ProctoLock2020.

Proctology is one of the surgical specialties that suffered the most during COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from a cross-sectional worldwide web survey, we aimed to snapshot the current status of proctologic practice in Italy with differences between three macro areas (North, Centre, South). Specialists affiliated to renowned scientific societies with an interest in coloproctology were invited to join a 27-item survey. Predictive power of respondents' and hospitals' demographics on the change of status of surgical activities was calculated. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392245). Of 299 respondents from Italy, 94 (40%) practiced in the North, 60 (25%) in the Centrer and 82 (35%) in the South and Islands. The majority were men (79%), at consultant level (70%), with a mean age of 46.5 years, practicing in academic hospitals (39%), where a dedicated proctologist was readily available (68%). Southern respondents were more at risk of infection compared to those from the Center (OR, 3.30; 95%CI 1.46; 7.47, P = 0.004), as were males (OR, 2.64; 95%CI 1.09; 6.37, P = 0.031) and those who routinely tested patients prior to surgery (OR, 3.02; 95%CI 1.39; 6.53, P = 0.005). The likelihood of ongoing surgical practice was higher in the South (OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.75; 2.46, P = 0.304) and in centers that were not fully dedicated to COVID-19 care (OR 4.00, 95%CI 1.88; 8.50, P < 0.001). The results of this survey highlight important factors contributing to the deadlock of proctologic practice in Italy and may inform the development of future management strategies.

Use of RAAS Inhibitors and Risk of Clinical Deterioration in COVID-19: Results From an Italian Cohort of 133 Hypertensives.

BACKGROUND: The effect of chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the severity of COVID-19 infection is still unclear in patients with hypertension. We aimed to investigate the association between chronic use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and COVID-19-related outcomes in hypertensive patients. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted on 133 consecutive hypertensive subjects presenting to the emergency department with acute respiratory symptoms and/or fever who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection between 9 and 31 March 2020. RESULTS: All patients were grouped according to their chronic antihypertensive medications (ACEIs, N = 40; ARBs, N = 42; not on RAAS inhibitors, N = 51). There was no statistical difference between ACEIs and ARBs groups in terms of hospital admission rate, oxygen therapy, and need for noninvasive ventilation. Patients chronically treated with RAAS inhibitors showed a significantly lower rate of admission to semi-intensive/intensive care units, when compared with the non-RAAS population (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.09-0.66, P = 0.006). Similarly, the risk of mortality was lower in the former group, although not reaching statistical significance (OR 0.56, CI 95% 0.17-1.83, P = 0.341). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that chronic use of RAAS inhibitors does not negatively affect clinical course of COVID-19 in hypertensive patients. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding and determine whether RAAS inhibitors may have a protective effect on COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.

Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Healthcare Workers in Italy: Results from a National E-Survey.

Italy has been the first-hit European country to face the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim of this survey was to assess in depth the impact of the outbreak on healthcare workers (HCW). A 40-item online survey was disseminated via social media inviting Italian HCW, with questions exploring demographics, health status and work environment of respondents. A total of 527 were invited to take part in March 2020, of whom 74% (n = 388) responded to the survey. Of these, 235 (61%) were women. HCW were mostly physicians (74%), from high-prevalence regions (52%). 25% experienced typical symptoms during the last 14 days prior to survey completion, with only 45% of them being tested for COVID-19. Among the tested population, 18 (18%) resulted positive for COVID-19, with 33% being asymptomatic. Only 22% of HCW considered personal protective equipment adequate for quality and quantity. Females and respondents working in high-risk sectors were more likely to rate psychological support as useful (OR, 1.78 [CI 95% 1.14-2.78] P = 0.012, and 2.02 [1.12-3.65] P = 0.020, respectively) and workload as increased (mean increase, 0.38 [0.06-0.69] P = 0.018; and 0.54 [0.16-0.92] P = 0.005, respectively). The insights from this survey may help authorities in countries where COVID-19 epidemic has not yet broken out. Management strategies should be promptly undertaken in order to enhance safety and optimise resource allocation.