Molnupiravir for treatment of adults with mild or moderate COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The effects of molnupiravir in treating patients with non-severe COVID-19 remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in adult patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and WHO COVID-19 database up to 27 December 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials with no language restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: Molnupiravir against standard care or placebo. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used a revision of RoB-2 criteria. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were mortality, hospital admission, viral clearance, time to viral clearance, time to symptom resolution or clinical improvement, any adverse events, and serious adverse events. We performed DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 30 472 patients proved eligible. Majority of patients were outpatients, with a mean age ranging from 35 to 56.6 years. In adult patients with mild or moderate COVID-19, molnupiravir probably reduces mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94; risk difference [RD], 0.1% fewer; moderate certainty) and the risk of hospital admission (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99; RD, 1.4% fewer; moderate certainty) and may reduce time to viral clearance (mean difference, -1.81 days; 95% CI, -3.31 to -0.31; low certainty) and time to symptom resolution or clinical improvement (mean difference, -2.39 days; 95% CI, -3.71 to -1.07; low certainty). Molnupiravir probably increases the rate of viral clearance (RR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.43-4.96; RD 16.1% more; moderate certainty) at 7 days (±3 days) and likely does not increase serious adverse events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15; RD 0.1% fewer; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with mild or moderate COVID-19, molnupiravir likely reduces mortality and risk of hospital admission probably without increasing serious adverse events.

Effects of therapies for Ebola virus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments targeting Ebola virus are crucial in managing Ebola virus disease. To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on medications for Ebola virus disease, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapies for patients with Ebola virus disease. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Global Health, African Index Medicus, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, Epistemonikos, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and SSRN without language restrictions for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and Jan 1, 2022, comparing at least one therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease against standard care or another therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility and extracted summary data independently using a standardised form. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, adverse maternal outcomes, risk of onward transmission, duration of admission to a health-care facility, functional status after Ebola virus disease, serious adverse events from medication, adverse perinatal outcomes, time to symptom resolution, and time to viral clearance. We did frequentist network meta-analyses to estimate the effect of all interventions and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We registered the protocol with PROSPERO, CRD42022296539. FINDINGS: We identified 7840 records through database searches, of which two RCTs with a total of 753 patients proved eligible. Only data on mortality, the duration of admission, serious adverse events, and time to viral clearance were available for meta-analysis. Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3 (relative risk [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·18 to 0·89; moderate certainty) and mAb114 (0·42, 0·19 to 0·93; moderate certainty) probably reduce mortality. Whether ZMapp (0·60, 0·28 to 1·26; very low certainty) and remdesivir (0·64, 0·29 to 1·39; very low certainty) reduce mortality compared with standard care is uncertain. With high certainty, REGN-EB3 reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·67, 0·52 to 0·88) and remdesivir (0·63, 0·49 to 0·82). With high certainty, mAb114 also reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·71, 0·55 to 0·91) and remdesivir (0·66, 0·52 to 0·84). Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3, mAb114, ZMapp, and remdesivir might have little or no effect on the time to viral clearance (mean difference ranged from -0·25 days to -1·14 days; low certainty). ZMapp might reduce the duration of admission compared with standard care (mean difference -2·02 days, 95% CI -4·05 to 0·01; low certainty). Findings for all comparisons suggested that there might be little or no difference in the prevalence of serious adverse events, but certainty was low or very low in all comparisons but one. INTERPRETATION: REGN-EB3 and mAb114 separately reduce mortality compared with ZMapp, remdesivir, or standard care in patients with Ebola virus disease. These findings suggest that health-care workers should prioritise the use of REGN-EB3 and mAb114 for patients with Ebola virus disease during future outbreaks. FUNDING: WHO.

Micronutrient perspective on COVID-19: Umbrella review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Micronutrients are clinically important in managing COVID-19, and numerous studies have been conducted, but inconsistent findings exist. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between micronutrients and COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus for study search on July 30, 2022 and October 15, 2022. Literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in a double-blinded, group discussion format. Meta-analysis with overlapping associations were reconsolidated using random effects models, and narrative evidence was performed in tabular presentations. RESULTS: 57 reviews and 57 latest original studies were included. 21 reviews and 53 original studies were of moderate to high quality. Vitamin D, vitamin B, zinc, selenium, and ferritin levels differed between patients and healthy people. Vitamin D and zinc deficiencies increased COVID-19 infection by 0.97-fold/0.39-fold and 1.53-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased severity 0.86-fold, while low vitamin B and selenium levels reduced severity. Vitamin D and calcium deficiencies increased ICU admission by 1.09 and 4.09-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased mechanical ventilation by 0.4-fold. Vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies increased COVID-19 mortality by 0.53-fold, 0.46-fold, and 5.99-fold, respectively. CONCLUSION: The associations between vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies and adverse evolution of COVID-19 were positive, while the association between vitamin C and COVID-19 was insignificant.REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022353953.

Risk and Protective Factors for COVID-19 Morbidity, Severity, and Mortality.

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become an evolving global health crisis. Currently, a number of risk factors have been identified to have a potential impact on increasing the morbidity of COVID-19 in adults, including old age, male sex, pre-existing comorbidities, and racial/ethnic disparities. In addition to these factors, changes in laboratory indices and pro-inflammatory cytokines, as well as possible complications, could indicate the progression of COVID-19 into a severe and critical stage. Children predominantly suffer from mild illnesses due to COVID-19. Similar to adults, the main risk factors in pediatric patients include age and pre-existing comorbidities. In contrast, supplementation with a healthy diet and sufficient nutrition, COVID-19 vaccination, and atopic conditions may act as protective factors against the infection of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccination not only protects vulnerable individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection, more importantly, it may also reduce the development of severe disease and death due to COVID-19. Currently used therapies for COVID-19 are off-label and empiric, and their impacts on the severity and mortality of COVID-19 are still unclear. The interaction between asthma and COVID-19 may be bidirectional and needs to be clarified in more studies. In this review, we highlight the clinical evidence supporting the rationale for the risk and protective factors for the morbidity, severity, and mortality of COVID-19.

Recent developments in the immunopathology of COVID-19.

There has been an important change in the clinical characteristics and immune profile of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients during the pandemic thanks to the extensive vaccination programs. Here, we highlight recent studies on COVID-19, from the clinical and immunological characteristics to the protective and risk factors for severity and mortality of COVID-19. The efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines and potential allergic reactions after administration are also discussed. The occurrence of new variants of concerns such as Omicron BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 and the global administration of COVID-19 vaccines have changed the clinical scenario of COVID-19. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may cause severe and heterogeneous disease but with a lower mortality rate. Perturbations in immunity of T cells, B cells, and mast cells, as well as autoantibodies and metabolic reprogramming may contribute to the long-term symptoms of COVID-19. There is conflicting evidence about whether atopic diseases, such as allergic asthma and rhinitis, are associated with a lower susceptibility and better outcomes of COVID-19. At the beginning of pandemic, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) developed guidelines that provided timely information for the management of allergic diseases and preventive measures to reduce transmission in the allergic clinics. The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with reduced pathogenic potential dramatically decreased the morbidity, severity, and mortality of COVID-19. Nevertheless, breakthrough infection remains a challenge for disease control. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to COVID-19 vaccines are low compared to other vaccines, and these were addressed in EAACI statements that provided indications for the management of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines. We have gained a depth knowledge and experience in the over 2 years since the start of the pandemic, and yet a full eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is not on the horizon. Novel strategies are warranted to prevent severe disease in high-risk groups, the development of MIS-C and long COVID-19.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4. RESULTS: A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice. CONCLUSION: Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

Caution in underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines.

We read with great interest the article "Underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review" written by Nicola Veronese et al. This important work demonstrated that medications and vaccines commonly used in older adults have not been adequately evaluated. Concerning this systematic review, we shall like to mention some certain points deserved to be attended by the authors.

The effect of allergy and asthma as a comorbidity on the susceptibility and outcomes of COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic causes an overwhelming number of hospitalization and deaths with a significant socioeconomic impact. The vast majority of studies indicate that asthma and allergic diseases do not represent a risk factor for COVID-19 susceptibility nor cause a more severe course of disease. This raises the opportunity to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the interaction between an allergic background and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The majority of patients with asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergies and drug allergies exhibit an over-expression of type 2 immune and inflammatory pathways with the contribution of epithelial cells, innate lymphoid cells, dendritic cells, T cells, eosinophils, mast cells, basophils, and the type 2 cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-9, IL-13, and IL-31. The potential impact of type 2 inflammation-related allergic diseases on susceptibility to COVID-19 and severity of its course have been reported. In this review, the prevalence of asthma and other common allergic diseases in COVID-19 patients is addressed. Moreover, the impact of allergic and non-allergic asthma with different severity and control status, currently available asthma treatments such as inhaled and oral corticosteroids, short- and long-acting ß2 agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists and biologicals on the outcome of COVID-19 patients is reviewed. In addition, possible protective mechanisms of asthma and type 2 inflammation on COVID-19 infection, such as the expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors, antiviral activity of eosinophils and cross-reactive T-cell epitopes, are discussed. Potential interactions of other allergic diseases with COVID-19 are postulated, including recommendations for their management.

Recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Since the first reports of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, there have been 198 million confirmed cases worldwide as of August 2021. The scientific community has joined efforts to gain knowledge of the newly emerged virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the immunopathological mechanisms leading to COVID-19, and its significance for patients with allergies and asthma. METHODS: Based on the current literature, recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases were reviewed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we discuss the prevalence of COVID-19 in subjects with asthma, attacks of hereditary angioedema, and other allergic diseases during COVID-19. Underlying mechanisms suggest a protective role of allergy in COVID-19, involving eosinophilia, SARS-CoV-2 receptors expression, interferon responses, and other immunological events, but further studies are needed to fully understand those associations. There has been significant progress in disease evaluation and management of COVID-19, and allergy care should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (EAACI) launched a series of statements and position papers providing recommendations on the organization of the allergy clinic, handling of allergen immunotherapy, asthma, drug hypersensitivity, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic diseases. Treatment of allergies using biologics during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been discussed. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, including severe anaphylaxis, have been reported. Vaccination is a prophylactic strategy that can lead to a significant reduction in the mortality and morbidity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in this review, we discuss the proposed culprit components causing rare adverse reactions and recommendations to mitigate the risk of anaphylactic events during the administration of the vaccines.

Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Corona virus disease (COVID-19) has now spread to all parts of the world and almost all countries are battling against it. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine (Hereinafter referred to as "Integrated Medicine") to COVID-19. We searched six major Chinese and English databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCSs) of Integrated Medicine on COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened, identified studies, and extracted data. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included RCTs and CCSs, respectively. Stata (version 13.0; StataCorp) was used to perform meta-analyses with the random-effects model. Risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous data while the weighted mean difference (WMD) was adopted for continuous variables as effect size, both of which were demonstrated in effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 11 studies were included. Four were RCTs and seven were CCSs. The sample size of including studies ranged from 42 to 200 (total 982). The traditional Chinese medicine included Chinese medicine compound drugs (QingFei TouXie FuZhengFang) and Chinese patent medicine (e.g. Shufeng Jiedu Capsule, Lianhua Qingwen granules). Compared with the control group, the overall response rate [RR = 1.230, 95%CI (1.113, 1.359), P = 0.000], cure rate [RR = 1.604, 95%CI (1.181, 2.177), P = 0.002], severity illness rate [RR = 0.350, 95%CI (0.154, 0.792), P = 0.012], and hospital stay [WMD = -1.991, 95%CI (-3.278, -0.703), P = 0.002] of the intervention group were better. In addition, Integrated Medicine can improve the disappearance rate of fever, cough, expectoration, fatigue, chest tightness and anorexia and reduce patients' fever, and fatigue time (P < 0.05). This review found that Integrated Medicine had better effects and did not increase adverse drug reactions for COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed in the future.

Global burden of upper respiratory infections in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are among the most common diseases. However, the related burden has not been comprehensively evaluated. Thus, we designed the present study to describe the global and regional burden of URIs from 1990 to 2019. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed on the incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of URIs in different sex and age groups, from 21 geographic regions, 204 countries and territories, between 1990 and 2019, using the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019. Countries and territories were categorized according to Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintiles. FINDINGS: Globally, the incident cases of URIs reached 17·2 (95% uncertainty interval: 15·4 to 19·3) billion in 2019, which accounted for 42·83% (40·01% to 45·77%) cases from all causes in the GBD 2019 study. The age-standardized incidence rate remained stable from 1990 to 2019, while significant decreases were found in the mortality and DALY rate. The highest age-standardized incidence rates from 1990 to 2019 and the highest age-standardized DALY rates after 2011 were observed in high SDI regions. Among all the age groups, children under five years old suffered from the highest incidence and DALY rates, both of which were decreased with increasing age. Fatal consequences of URIs occurred mostly in the elderly and children under five years old. INTERPRETATION: The present study provided comprehensive estimates of URIs burden for the first time. Our findings, highlighting the substantial incidence and considerable DALYs due to URIs, are expected to attract more attention to URIs and provide future explorations in the prevention and treatment with epidemiological evidence. FUNDING: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81770057).

Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO.

Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out the relevant problems. PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) was searched for SRs on COVID-19 treatments as of 2 June 2020. Excel 2016 was used for descriptive analyses of the extracted data. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for collaborations between countries and institutions. A total of 189 SRs were included, which were registered by 301 institutions from 39 countries. China (69, 36.50%) exhibited the highest output. Cooperation between countries was not close enough. As an institution, the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (7, 3.70%) had the highest output. There was close cooperation between institutions. Interventions included antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), respiratory support (16, 8.47%), circulatory support (11, 5.82%), plasma therapy for convalescent patients (11, 5.82%), immunotherapy (9, 4.76%), TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) treatment (9, 4.76%), rehabilitation treatment (5, 2.65%), anti-inflammatory treatment (16, 8.47%) and other treatments (31, 16.40%). Concerning antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), the most commonly used antiviral agents were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (26, 13.76%), followed by remdesivir (12, 6.35%), lobinavir/ritonavir (11, 5.82%), favipiravir (5, 2.65%), ribavirin (5, 2.65%), interferon (5, 2.65%), abiron (4, 2.12%) and abidor (4, 2.12%). The most frequently used primary and secondary outcomes were the mortality rate (92, 48.68%) and hospital stay length (48, 25.40%), respectively. The expression of the outcomes was not standardised. Many COVID-19 SRs on treatment modalities have been registered, with a low completion rate. Although there was some collaboration between countries and institutions in the currently registered SRs on treatment modalities for COVID-19 on PROSPERO, cooperation between countries should be further enhanced. More attention should be directed towards identifying deficiencies of outcome measures, and the standardisation of results should be maximised.

Nervous system diseases are associated with the severity and mortality of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Previous studies showed that comorbidities in patients with COVID-19 are risk factors for adverse outcomes. This study aimed to clarify the association between nervous system diseases and severity or mortality in patients with COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search of four electronic databases and included studies reporting the prevalence of nervous system diseases in COVID-19 patients with severe and non-severe disease or among survivors and non-survivors. The included studies were pooled into a meta-analysis to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). We included 69 studies involving 17 879 patients. The nervous system diseases were associated with COVID-19 severity (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 2.37 to 4.30, P < 0.001) and mortality (OR = 3.75, 95%CI: 2.68 to 5.25, P < 0.001). Specifically, compared with the patients without cerebrovascular disease, patients with cerebrovascular disease infected with COVID-19 had a higher risk of severity (OR = 3.10, 95%CI: 2.21 to 4.36, P < 0.001) and mortality (OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.46 to 4.84, P < 0.001). Stroke was associated with severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 1.95, 95%CI: 1.11 to 3.42, P = 0.020). No significant differences were found for the prevalence of epilepsy (OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.42 to 2.35, P = 0.994) and dementia (OR = 2.39, 95%CI: 0.55 to 10.48, P = 0.247) between non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant association between stroke (OR = 1.79, 95%CI: 0.76 to 4.23, P = 0.185), epilepsy (OR = 2.08, 95%CI: 0.08 to 50.91, P = 0.654) and COVID-19 mortality. In conclusion, nervous system diseases and cerebrovascular disease were associated with severity and mortality of patients with COVID-19. There might be confounding factors that influence the relationship between nervous system diseases and COVID-19 severity as well as mortality.

Risk factors for severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: A review.

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused an unprecedented global social and economic impact, and high numbers of deaths. Many risk factors have been identified in the progression of COVID-19 into a severe and critical stage, including old age, male gender, underlying comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, chronic lung diseases, heart, liver and kidney diseases, tumors, clinically apparent immunodeficiencies, local immunodeficiencies, such as early type I interferon secretion capacity, and pregnancy. Possible complications include acute kidney injury, coagulation disorders, thoromboembolism. The development of lymphopenia and eosinopenia are laboratory indicators of COVID-19. Laboratory parameters to monitor disease progression include lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1ß, Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6), and ferritin. The development of a cytokine storm and extensive chest computed tomography imaging patterns are indicators of a severe disease. In addition, socioeconomic status, diet, lifestyle, geographical differences, ethnicity, exposed viral load, day of initiation of treatment, and quality of health care have been reported to influence individual outcomes. In this review, we highlight the scientific evidence on the risk factors of severity of COVID-19.

Clinical, radiological, and laboratory characteristics and risk factors for severity and mortality of 289 hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, with 10%-20% of severe cases and over 508 000 deaths worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address the risk factors associated with the severity of COVID-19 patients and the mortality of severe patients. METHODS: 289 hospitalized laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in this study. Electronic medical records, including patient demographics, clinical manifestation, comorbidities, laboratory tests results, and radiological materials, were collected and analyzed. According to the severity and outcomes of the patients, they were divided into three groups: nonsurvived (n = 49), survived severe (n = 78), and nonsevere (n = 162) groups. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were compared among these groups. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to reduce the dimensionality and visualize the patients on a low-dimensional space. Correlations between clinical, radiological, and laboratory parameters were investigated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods were used to determine the risk factors associated with mortality in severe patients. Longitudinal changes of laboratory findings of survived severe cases and nonsurvived cases during hospital stay were also collected. RESULTS: Of the 289 patients, the median age was 57 years (range, 22-88) and 155 (53.4%) patients were male. As of the final follow-up date of this study, 240 (83.0%) patients were discharged from the hospital and 49 (17.0%) patients died. Elder age, underlying comorbidities, and increased laboratory variables, such as leukocyte count, neutrophil count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), D-dimer, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) on admission, were found in survived severe cases compared to nonsevere cases. According to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, elder age, a higher number of affected lobes, elevated CRP levels on admission, increased prevalence of chest tightness/dyspnea, and smoking history were independent risk factors for death of severe patients. A trajectory in PCA was observed from "nonsevere" toward "nonsurvived" via "severe and survived" patients. Strong correlations between the age of patients, the affected lobe numbers, and laboratory variables were identified. Dynamic changes of laboratory findings of survived severe cases and nonsurvived cases during hospital stay showed that continuing increase of leukocytes and neutrophil count, sustained lymphopenia and eosinopenia, progressing decrease in platelet count, as well as high levels of NLR, CRP, PCT, AST, BUN, and serum creatinine were associated with in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Survived severe and nonsurvived COVID-19 patients had distinct clinical and laboratory characteristics, which were separated by principle component analysis. Elder age, increased number of affected lobes, higher levels of serum CRP, chest tightness/dyspnea, and smoking history were risk factors for mortality of severe COVID-19 patients. Longitudinal changes of laboratory findings may be helpful in predicting disease progression and clinical outcome of severe patients.

Clinical characteristics of 182 pediatric COVID-19 patients with different severities and allergic status.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has made widespread impact recently. We aim to investigate the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 children with different severities and allergic status. METHODS: Data extracted from the electronic medical records, including demographics, clinical manifestations, comorbidities, laboratory and immunological results, and radiological images of 182 hospitalized COVID-19 children, were summarized and analyzed. RESULTS: The median age was 6 years, ranging from 3 days to 15 years, and there were more boys (male-female ratio about 2:1) within the studied 182 patients. Most of the children were infected by family members. Fever (43.4%) and dry cough (44.5%) were common symptoms, and gastrointestinal manifestations accounted for 11.0%, including diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, and vomiting. 71.4% had abnormal chest computed tomography (CT) scan images, and typical signs of pneumonia were ground-glass opacity and local patchy shadowing on admission. Laboratory results were mostly within normal ranges, and only a small ratio of lymphopenia (3.9%) and eosinopenia (29.5%) were observed. The majority (97.8%) of infected children were not severe, and 24 (13.2%) of them had asymptomatic infections. Compared to children without pneumonia (manifested as asymptomatic and acute upper respiratory infection), children with pneumonia were associated with higher percentages of the comorbidity history, symptoms of fever and cough, and increased levels of serum procalcitonin, alkaline phosphatase, and serum interleukins (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α. There were no differences in treatments, duration of hospitalization, time from first positive to first negative nucleic acid testing, and outcomes between children with mild pneumonia and without pneumonia. All the hospitalized COVID-19 children had recovered except one death due to intussusception and sepsis. In 43 allergic children with COVID-19, allergic rhinitis (83.7%) was the major disease, followed by drug allergy, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and asthma. Demographics and clinical features were not significantly different between allergic and nonallergic groups. Allergic patients showed less increase in acute phase reactants, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and aspartate aminotransferase levels compared with all patients. Immunological profiles including circulating T, B, and NK lymphocyte subsets, total immunoglobulin and complement levels, and serum cytokines did not show any difference in allergic and pneumonia groups. Neither eosinophil counts nor serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels showed a significant correlation with other immunological measures, such as other immunoglobulins, complements, lymphocyte subset numbers, and serum cytokine levels. CONCLUSION: Pediatric COVID-19 patients tended to have a mild clinical course. Patients with pneumonia had higher proportion of fever and cough and increased inflammatory biomarkers than those without pneumonia. There was no difference between allergic and nonallergic COVID-19 children in disease incidence, clinical features, and laboratory and immunological findings. Allergy was not a risk factor for developing and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hardly influenced the disease course of COVID-19 in children.

The role of workplace social capital on the relationship between perceived stress and professional identity among clinical nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak.

AIM: Workplace social capital refers to relationship networks formed by individuals in an organization through long-term mutually beneficial interactions and cooperation with members. These relationship networks can create value and resources for organizations and individuals. This current study aimed to explore the potential impact of workplace social capital on the association between perceived stress and professional identity in clinical nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 308 Chinese clinical nurses filled out the Chinese Workplace Social Capital Scale, the Chinese Perceived Stress Scale, and the Chinese Nurse's Professional Identity Scale. Descriptive analysis, independent samples t test, analysis of variance, Pearson correlation analyses, and bootstrap method were performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: Perceived stress was negatively correlated with professional identity (r = -0.455, p < .001). Workplace social capital was not found to moderate the relationship between perceived stress and professional identity (95% CI -0.03 to- 0.06, p = .47 > .05). Instead, it mediated that relationship (95% CI -0.61 to -0.19, p < .05), and its mediating effect was -0.37. CONCLUSIONS: In the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, workplace social capital among the investigated clinical nurses failed to buffer the negative impact of perceived stress on professional identity, but it did play a part in mediating perceived stress and professional identity. A healthy workplace should be provided to clinical nurses to improve their professional identity, while lowering perceived stress.