COVID-19-Associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many postmortem studies address the cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 and provide valuable information, but are limited by their small sample size. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to better understand the various aspects of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 by pooling data from a large number of autopsy studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for concepts of autopsy or histopathology combined with COVID-19, published between database inception and February 2021. We also searched for unpublished manuscripts using the medRxiv services operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported human postmortem cardiovascular findings among individuals with a confirmed SARS coronavirus type 2 (CoV-2) infection. PARTICIPANTS: Confirmed COVID-19 patients with post-mortem cardiovascular findings. INTERVENTIONS: None. METHODS: Studies were individually assessed for risk of selection, detection, and reporting biases. The median prevalence of different autopsy findings with associated interquartile ranges (IQRs). RESULTS: This review cohort contained 50 studies including 548 hearts. The median age of the deceased was 69 years. The most prevalent acute cardiovascular findings were myocardial necrosis (median: 100.0%; IQR, 20%-100%; number of studies = 9; number of patients = 64) and myocardial oedema (median: 55.5%; IQR, 19.5%-92.5%; number of studies = 4; number of patients = 46). The median reported prevalence of extensive, focal active, and multifocal myocarditis were all 0.0%. The most prevalent chronic changes were myocyte hypertrophy (median: 69.0%; IQR, 46.8%-92.1%) and fibrosis (median: 35.0%; IQR, 35.0%-90.5%). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the myocardium with median prevalence of 60.8% (IQR 40.4-95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review confirmed the high prevalence of acute and chronic cardiac pathologies in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 cardiac tropism, as well as the low prevalence of myocarditis in COVID-19.

Prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome symptoms at different follow-up periods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness. METHODS: Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively. RESULTS: After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19-negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.

Cardiac Toxicity of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and to estimate the risk of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cardiac toxicity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We searched multiple data sources including PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science and medrxiv.org from November 2019 through May 27, 2020. We included studies that enrolled patients with COVID-19 treated with CQ or HCQ, with or without azithromycin, and reported on cardiac toxic effects. We performed a meta-analysis using the arcsine transformation of the different incidences. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies with a total of 5652 patients were included. The pooled incidence of torsades de pointes arrhythmia, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest was 3 per 1000 (95% CI, 0-21; I 2 =96%) in 18 studies with 3725 patients. Among 13 studies of 4334 patients, the pooled incidence of discontinuation of CQ or HCQ due to prolonged QTc or arrhythmias was 5% (95% CI, 1-11; I 2 =98%). The pooled incidence of change in QTc from baseline of 60 milliseconds or more or QTc of 500 milliseconds or more was 9% (95% CI, 3-17; I 2 =97%). Mean or median age, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, concomitant QT-prolonging medications, intensive care unit admission, and severity of illness in the study populations explained between-studies heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with COVID-19 with CQ or HCQ is associated with an important risk of drug-induced QT prolongation and relatively higher incidence of torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest. Therefore, these agents should not be used routinely in the management of COVID-19 disease. Patients with COVID-19 who are treated with antimalarials for other indications should be adequately monitored.

Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96-1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00-1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.