A clinical profile of infective endocarditis in patients with recent COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can progress to cardiovascular complications which are linked to higher in-hospital mortality rates. Infective endocarditis (IE) can develop in patients with recent COVID-19 infections, however, characterization of IE following COVID-19 infection has been lacking. To better characterize this disease, we performed a systematic review with descriptive analysis of the clinical features and outcomes of these patients. METHODS: Our search was conducted in 8 databases for all published reports of probable or definite IE in patients with a prior COVID-19 confirmed diagnosis. After ensuring an appropriate inclusion of the articles, we extracted data related to clinical characteristics, modified duke criteria, microbiology, outcomes, and procedures. RESULTS: Searches generated a total of 323 published reports, and 20 articles met our inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 52.2 ± 16.9 years and 76.2% were males. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated in 8 (38.1%) patients, Enterococcus faecalis in 3 patients (14.3%) and Streptococcus mitis/oralis in 2 (9.5%) patients. The mean time interval between COVID-19 and IE diagnoses was 16.7 ± 15 days. Six (28.6%) patients required critical care due to IE, 7 patients (33.3%) underwent IE-related cardiac surgery and 5 patients (23.8%) died during their IE hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review provides a profile of clinical features and outcomes of patients with a prior COVID-19 infection diagnosis who subsequently developed IE. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that clinicians appreciate the possibility of IE as a unique complication of COVID-19 infection.

Prior Statin Use and Risk of Mortality and Severe Disease From Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 index. RESULTS: Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56-.77], I 2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57-.94], I 2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emotional Resilience of Older Adults during COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Studies of Stress and Well-Being.

OBJECTIVES: To examine post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and well-being in older adults under quarantine. METHODS: A systematic review of CINAHL, Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Keywords included coronavirus, epidemic, quarantine, stress, mental health, and similar terms. Included studies enrolled participants under quarantine, quantitatively measured mental health or well-being, and characterized outcomes by age. RESULTS: Of 894 initial results, 20 studies met the criteria and were included. Studies comprise 106,553 participants from eight countries, ages 6-100, two epidemics (COVID-19, SARS), and 27 assessment tools. One study found greater distress in older adults relative to younger adults, one found no significant differences, and 18 found lower negative outcomes in older participants in at least one metric. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults in this review generally have lower stress and less negative emotions under quarantine than younger adults. It is unknown how this compares to pre-pandemic measures. More representative and longitudinal studies are needed to measure the impact of quarantine on the mental health of older adults. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As existing scales may not capture the full extent of pandemic psychological effects on older adults, clinicians must vigilantly monitor older adults' mental health.

Mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Many meta-analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.03, I2  = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86-1.42, I2  = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.04, I2  = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID-19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID-19 infection in patients with high-risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.