Excess of cesarean births in pregnant women with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that cesarean birth in pregnant women with COVID-19 may decrease maternal adverse events and perinatal transmission. This systematic review aimed to evaluate variations in clinical presentation, laboratory findings, and maternal/neonatal outcomes in COVID-19 patients who delivered vaginally versus via cesarean. METHODS: A comprehensive search following PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies published up to May 23, 2020, using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Science Direct, and clinicaltrials.gov. Original retrospective and prospective studies, case reports, or case series with sufficient data for estimating the association of COVID-19 with different pregnancy outcomes with no language restriction and published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Pooled mean and arcsine transformation proportions were applied. Next, a two-arm meta-analysis was performed comparing the perinatal outcomes between the study groups. RESULTS: Forty-two studies with a total of 602 pregnant women with COVID-19 were included. The mean age was 31.8 years. Subgroup analysis showed that Americans had the lowest gestational age (mean = 32.7, 95%CI = 27.0-38.4, P < 0.001) and the highest incidence of maternal ICU admission (95%CI = 0.45%-2.20, P < 0.001) of all nationalities in the study. There was no significant difference in perinatal complications, premature rupture of membrane, placenta previa/accreta, or gestational hypertension/pre-eclampsia between women who delivered vaginally versus by cesarean. Importantly, there were also no significant differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Vaginal delivery was not associated with worse maternal or neonatal outcomes when compared with cesarean. The decision to pursue a cesarean birth should be based on standard indications, not COVID-19 status.

Annual flu shot: Does it help patients with COVID-19?

AIM OF THE STUDY: The impact of annual flu vaccination on the patients' clinical course with COVID-19 and the outcome were tested. METHODS: A total of 149 patients with COVID-19-positive admitted from March 20 to May 10, 2020, were retrospectively enrolled. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (65.8%) patients received at least a single annual flu shot in the last year, and fifty-one (34.2%) were never vaccinated. On presentation, vaccinated patients were more likely to present with gastrointestinal symptoms (P < .05). There were no significant differences between study groups in laboratory findings or clinical outcomes. In multivariate analysis, receiving the annual shot did not influence risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.50-2.72, P = .72), intubation (OR = 1.40, 95%CI = 0.60-3.23, P = .43), complications (OR = 1.08, 95%CI = 0.52-2.26, P = .83) or mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 0.31-5.29, P = .73). CONCLUSION: Although the benefits of the influenza vaccine for preventing disease and reducing morbidity in influenza patients are well established, no differences in outcomes for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who received their annual influenza vaccination versus the non-vaccinated cohort were evident. There is a need for future meta-analyses, including randomised controlled studies in which the number of cases is increased to validate these findings.

Vitamin D insufficiency as a potential culprit in critical COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: As an immune modulator, vitamin D has been implicated in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcome. We aim to systematically explore the association of vitamin D serum levels with COVID-19 severity and prognosis. METHODS: The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to estimate pooled results from six studies. The prognostic performance of vitamin D serum levels for predicting adverse outcomes with detection of the best cutoff threshold was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision tree analysis by combining vitamin D levels and clinical features was applied to predict severity in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Mean vitamin D serum level of 376 patients, was 21.9 nmol/L (95% CI = 15.36-28.45). Significant heterogeneity was found (I2 = 99.1%, p < .001). Patients with poor prognosis (N = 150) had significantly lower serum levels of vitamin D compared with those with good prognosis (N = 161), representing an adjusted standardized mean difference of -0.58 (95% Cl = -0.83 to -0.34, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Serum vitamin D levels could be implicated in the COVID-19 prognosis. Diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency could be a helpful adjunct in assessing patients' potential of developing severe COVID-19. Appropriate preventative and/or therapeutic intervention may improve COVID-19 outcomes.

Gastroenterology manifestations and COVID-19 outcomes: A meta-analysis of 25,252 cohorts among the first and second waves.

A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatric COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically review the clinical and laboratory features of patients with the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatrics diagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA SOURCES: A literature search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct was made up to June 29, 2020. RESULTS: Analysis of 15 articles (318 COVID-19 patients) revealed that although many patients presented with the typical multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatrics, Kawasaki-like features as fever (82.4%), polymorphous maculopapular exanthema (63.7%), oral mucosal changes (58.1%), conjunctival injections (56.0%), edematous extremities (40.7%), and cervical lymphadenopathy (28.5%), atypical gastrointestinal (79.4%) and neurocognitive symptoms (31.8%) were also common. They had elevated serum lactic acid dehydrogenase, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, troponin I levels, and lymphopenia. Nearly 77.0% developed hypotension, and 68.1% went into shock, while 41.1% had acute kidney injury. Intensive care was needed in 73.7% of cases; 13.2% were intubated, and 37.9% required mechanical ventilation. Intravenous immunoglobulins and steroids were given in 87.7% and 56.9% of the patients, respectively, and anticoagulants were utilized in 67.0%. Pediatric patients were discharged after a hospital stay of 6.77 days on average (95% CI 4.93-8.6). CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the typical and atypical presentation of the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatric COVID-19 patients has important implications in identifying children at risk. Monitoring cardiac and renal decompensation and early interventions in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome is critical to prevent further morbidity.

Asthma and COVID-19; different entities, same outcome: a meta-analysis of 107,983 patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are varying reports of the prevalence and effect of comorbid asthma in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis comparing asthmatic and non-asthmatic patients to determine the clinical significance of preexisting asthma in COVID-19 patients. DATA SOURCES: Online databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched up to July 15, 2020, for papers comparing asthma versus non-asthma COVID-19 patients. STUDY SELECTION: According to prespecified inclusion criteria, this analysis included eleven retrospective studies with 107,983 COVID-19 patients. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age groups. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59.9 years (95%CI = 51.9-67.9). Across studies, the prevalence of asthma was 11.2% (95%CI: 9.1%-13.3%) among COVID-19 patients who attended the hospitals. Asthma patients were more likely to be younger (SMD = -0.36, 95%CI = -0.61 to -0.10, p = 0.005), and obese (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.54-2.55, p < 0.001), there was no differential risk of hospitalization rate, ICU admission, or development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between asthmatic and non-asthmatic cohorts. However, asthmatic patients had increased risk of endotracheal intubation (RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.58, p = 0.030) especially patients aged <50 years (RR = 6.68, 95%CI = 1.76-11.13, p = 0.009). Despite this result, asthmatic patients had better recovery with a higher liability of being discharged and were less likely to die (RR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.65-0.97, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, our meta-analysis is the largest to shed light on preexisting asthma as a predictor of intubation in COVID-19, especially in young and obese patients. Identifying high-risk groups is crucial for designing more effective intervention plans and optimization of efficient resource allocation.

Time-varying Reproductive Rates for SARS-CoV-2 and its Implications as a Means of Disease Surveillance on Lockdown Restrictions.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the time-varying reproductive rates for SARS-CoV-2 and its implication in Louisiana. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Basic reproductive number (R0) and effective reproductive number (Re or Rt) are 2 measures of the ability of an infectious agent to spread in the environment. They differ in that R0 assumes zero immunity in the population, while Re or Rt accounts for change over time. Reproductive number modeling is influenced by several factors, including serial interval, the time between the onset of symptoms in an infector, and a secondary case. Quantification of the ability of a pathogen to spread is essential in guiding policy. METHODS: Here, we construct epidemic curves and calculate daily Rt values for the state of Louisiana and each of its 9 regions. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated variation over both time and geography in calculated R0 and Rt values. Generally, as time has progressed, predicted R0 and Rt values have decreased. In Louisiana, mean Rt was calculated at 3.07 in March and 0.82 by May. A reproductive number less than one is important as it indicates infectious spread will decline with time. The most recent finding of mean Rt = 0.82 is important. It stands in stark contrast to the situation in April when New Orleans, Louisiana, had the highest per capita coronavirus mortality rate in the United States - twice that of New York City and 4 times the rate in Seattle. CONCLUSION: As locations around the world begin to lift restrictions, monitoring of infectious spread will be essential.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of hematological and immunological markers in COVID-19 infection: A meta-analysis of 6320 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based characterization of the diagnostic and prognostic value of the hematological and immunological markers related to the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical to understand the clinical course of the infection and to assess in development and validation of biomarkers. METHODS: Based on systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct up to April 22, 2020, a total of 52 eligible articles with 6,320 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cohorts were included. Pairwise comparison between severe versus mild disease, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) versus general ward admission and expired versus survivors were performed for 36 laboratory parameters. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the DerSimonian Laird method/random effects model and converted to the Odds ratio (OR). The decision tree algorithm was employed to identify the key risk factor(s) attributed to severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: Cohorts with elevated levels of white blood cells (WBCs) (OR = 1.75), neutrophil count (OR = 2.62), D-dimer (OR = 3.97), prolonged prothrombin time (PT) (OR = 1.82), fibrinogen (OR = 3.14), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR = 1.60), procalcitonin (OR = 4.76), IL-6 (OR = 2.10), and IL-10 (OR = 4.93) had higher odds of progression to severe phenotype. Decision tree model (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 81%) showed the high performance of neutrophil count at a cut-off value of more than 3.74x109/L for identifying patients at high risk of severe COVID-19. Likewise, ICU admission was associated with higher levels of WBCs (OR = 5.21), neutrophils (OR = 6.25), D-dimer (OR = 4.19), and prolonged PT (OR = 2.18). Patients with high IL-6 (OR = 13.87), CRP (OR = 7.09), D-dimer (OR = 6.36), and neutrophils (OR = 6.25) had the highest likelihood of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Several hematological and immunological markers, in particular neutrophilic count, could be helpful to be included within the routine panel for COVID-19 infection evaluation to ensure risk stratification and effective management.

Association of cardiac biomarkers and comorbidities with increased mortality, severity, and cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients: A meta-regression and decision tree analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has a deleterious effect on several systems, including the cardiovascular system. We aim to systematically explore the association of COVID-19 severity and mortality rate with the history of cardiovascular diseases and/or other comorbidities and cardiac injury laboratory markers. METHODS: The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to estimate pooled results from the 56 studies. The prognostic performance of cardiac markers for predicting adverse outcomes and to select the best cutoff threshold was estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision tree analysis by combining cardiac markers with demographic and clinical features was applied to predict mortality and severity in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 17 794 patients showed patients with high cardiac troponin I (OR = 5.22, 95% CI = 3.73-7.31, P < .001) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels (OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 2.84-4.66, P < .001) were more likely to develop adverse outcomes. High troponin I more than 13.75 ng/L combined with either advanced age more than 60 years or elevated AST level more than 27.72 U/L was the best model to predict poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 severity and mortality are complicated by myocardial injury. Assessment of cardiac injury biomarkers may improve the identification of those patients at the highest risk and potentially lead to improved therapeutic approaches.