Changes in inpatient admissions before and during COVID-19 outbreak in a large tertiary hospital in Shanghai.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused a significant strain on healthcare resources and utilization worldwide. However, the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on patient hospitalization was barely known. This study aimed to determine the impact of the outbreak on the pattern of inpatient hospital admissions to help allocate health care resources during a pandemic. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who were hospitalized in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai between 1 January and 30 April across the years 2017 to 2020. The number of hospitalizations during the study period from 2017 to 2020 were 30,605, 31,464, 32,812 and 24,163, respectively. Changes in patient volumes and the frequency of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problem Tenth Edition (ICD-10) codes before and after the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak were analyzed and presented as absolute and relative differences with 95% confidence intervals between periods of different years. Results: Overall inpatient hospital admissions decreased by 26.35% between January and April 2020, compared to the same period in 2019. The average age of patients in 2020 was higher compared to those from 2017 to 2019. Conversely, the proportions of self-paying patients and non-local patients were significantly lower between January and April 2020 compared to the same period in the previous three years. The top five ICD-10 codes remained common before and during the pandemic. Admissions associated with antineoplastic radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy increased in frequency and proportion by 2020 (difference, 5.6%, 95% CI: 4.4% to 6.8%), and increased proportions were observed for liver and intrahepatic bile duct malignancies (2.18%, 95% CI: 1.15% to 3.21%), cerebral infarction (2.27%, 95% CI: 0.54% to 4.00%), and chronic kidney disease (3.56%, 95% CI: 1.79% to 5.33%). Conclusions: There was a significant reduction in the number of inpatients and a marked change in admission diagnoses during the COVID-19 outbreak. Our findings are useful for making informed decisions on hospital management and reallocation of available health care resources during a pandemic.

The Use of Oral Anticoagulation Is Not Associated With a Reduced Risk of Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Background: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolic events are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Whether chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improve the prognosis is yet controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the association between the chronic OAC and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify studies that evaluated OAC for COVID-19 until 24 July 2021. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to pool the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. According to the type of oral anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)], subgroup and interaction analyses were performed to compare DOACs and VKAs. Meta-regression was performed to explore the potential confounders on all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 30,646 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results confirmed that chronic OAC did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.82-1.03; p = 0.165) or ICU admission (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.40-1.04; p = 0.073) in patients with COVID-19 compared to those without OAC. The chronic use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to VKAs (P interaction = 0.497) in subgroup and interaction analyses. The meta-regression failed to detect any potential confounding on all-cause mortality. Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with chronic OAC were not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and ICU admission compared to those without OAC, and the results were consistent across DOACs and VKA subgroups. Systematic Review Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42021269764.

A bibliometric analysis of infectious diseases in patients with liver transplantation in the last decade.

BACKGROUND: A bibliometric analysis was performed to reveal the current status of investigations in infectious diseases in patients with liver transplantation (LT) and to prioritize future research needs. METHODS: The present study comprehensively retrieved publications relevant to infectious diseases in LT recipients published between 2010 and 2020. The search was conducted on the Web of Science (WoS) database. A bibliometric analysis was conducted through machine learning and visualization tools, including VOSviewer, Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder, and Graphical Clustering Toolkit. Research hotspots and trends in the field were assessed, while the contributions and collaborations of countries, institutions, and authors were documented. RESULTS: A total of 691 publications were analyzed. Research output sharply increased in 2015, with a fast drop afterward. "Liver transplantation" was the most frequent keyword, with strong links to "hepatitis C virus" and "infection". Study areas included risk factors of infectious diseases in LT recipients, pathogens causing post-transplantation infections, antibacterial therapy and prophylaxis for peritransplant infection complications, living donor LT, and pediatric LT. The efficacy and safety of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among liver transplant recipients has attracted recent research interest. Didier Samuel was the most productive author, while Xavier Forns was the top-cited author. Shanghai Jiao Tong University was the most productive contributor, and Gilead Sciences was the most cited organization. Moreover, the USA was the greatest contributor. Gastroenterology was the most cited journal, while Liver Transplantation was the most prolific journal. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis will better understand the research status of infectious complications in LT recipients and forecast future research trends. Priority should be given to identifying risk factors for peritransplantation infections and effective treatments against infectious complications in the coming years.

Reduction in antimicrobial use associated with a multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship programme in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai: a segmented regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rational use of antibiotics received great attention in China, therefore the multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship (MAMS) is urgently required in hospital management. We conducted this study to assess the impact of a MAMS programme on antimicrobial use in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai. The MAMS programme involved multifaceted interventions consisting of a quality premium with financial incentives, antibiotic restriction, audit and feedback, and education. Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of inpatients to analyse monthly and annual antibiotic consumption and the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions during 2017-2020. Segmented regression analysis of the interrupted time series was used to contrast antimicrobial use during 2019-2020, with non-MAMS data from the 2017-2018 period as the historical control. RESULTS: With MAMS implementation, antibiotic consumption decreased from 63.3 (59.3, 67.2) defined daily doses (DDDs) per 100 patient-days (PD) to 43.3 (39.0, 49.8) DDDs/100 PD (P<0.001), and the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 44.8% (44.1%, 45.4%) to 43.3% (42.2%, 44.3%) (P<0.001). Segmented regression models suggested a reduction in antibiotic consumption (coefficient = -12.537, P<0.001) and indicated a downward trend in the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions (coefficient =-0.165, P=0.049). Neither antibiotic consumption nor the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions was influenced by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that MAMS plays an important role in reducing antibiotic use and is not affected by special circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This novel intervention, consisting of a quality premium and multidisciplinary cooperation, should be prioritized by policy and decision makers, where rational management of antimicrobial use is urgently needed.

Efficacy and safety of current therapeutic options for COVID-19 - lessons to be learnt from SARS and MERS epidemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The rapidly progressing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global concern. This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of current option of therapies for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) besides COVID-19, in an attempt to identify promising therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and WANFANG DATA for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated therapies (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy, and ribavirin-based therapy, etc.) for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The primary outcomes were mortality, virological eradication and clinical improvement, and secondary outcomes were improvement of symptoms and chest radiography results, incidence of acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS), utilization of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AEs). Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models, and the quality of evidence was appraised using GRADEpro. Eighteen articles (5 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 11 retrospective cohort studies) involving 4,941 patients were included. Compared with control treatment, anti-coronary virus interventions significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I2 = 81.3%), remarkably ameliorate clinical improvement (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19) and radiographical improvement (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36, I2 = 11.0 %), without manifesting clear effect on virological eradication, incidence of ARDS, intubation, and AEs. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids remarkably decreased mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68). The lopinavir/ritonavir-based combination showed superior virological eradication and radiographical improvement with reduced rate of ARDS. Likewise, hydroxychloroquine improved radiographical result. For safety, ribavirin could induce more bradycardia, anemia and transaminitis. Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine could increase AEs rate especially diarrhea. Overall, the quality of evidence on most outcomes were very low. In conclusion, although we could not draw a clear conclusion for the recommendation of potential therapies for COVID-19 considering the very low quality of evidence and wide heterogeneity of interventions and indications, our results may help clinicians to comprehensively understand the advantages and drawbacks of each anti-coronavirus agents on efficacy and safety profiles. Lopinavir/ritonavir combinations might observe better virological eradication capability than other anti-coronavirus agents. Conversely, ribavirin might cause more safety concerns especially bradycardia. Thus, large RCTs objectively assessing the efficacy of antiviral therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infections should be conducted with high priority.

Predictors of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate, especially in patients with severe illness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three electronic Chinese databases were searched from December 1, 2019 to April 29, 2020. Eligible studies reporting potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 were identified. Unadjusted prognostic effect estimates were pooled using the random-effects model if data from at least two studies were available. Adjusted prognostic effect estimates were presented by qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six observational studies were identified, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 106 potential risk factors were tested, and the following important predictors were associated with mortality: advanced age, male sex, current smoking status, preexisting comorbidities (especially chronic kidney, respiratory, and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases), symptoms of dyspnea, complications during hospitalization, corticosteroid therapy and a severe condition. Additionally, a series of abnormal laboratory biomarkers of hematologic parameters, hepatorenal function, inflammation, coagulation, and cardiovascular injury were also associated with fatal outcome. CONCLUSION: We identified predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19. These findings could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and improve clinical outcomes in such patients.

Current therapeutic options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-lessons learned from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) therapy: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, first manifested in December 2019, and spread rapidly worldwide. Facing this lethal disease, there is an urgent need to develop potent therapies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetically and symptomatically resembles SARS-CoV and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Numerous agents have been utilised during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemics, which may show some benefit against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database will be searched. Manual searches will be conducted by searching pre-printing websites, clinical trial registers, and screening the reference lists of inclusive studies. The screening of all citations and the selection of inclusive articles will be conducted by two reviewers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled cohort studies reporting antiviral therapies, including ribavirin, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon, for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 will be included. The primary outcomes will be mortality, incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and utilisation of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission. The secondary outcomes will be improvement in symptoms and chest radiography results, virus clearance, changes in blood test results, and serum tests. The quality of the retrieved RCTs and observational studies will be appraised according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. If feasible, we will perform a fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise all the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of current therapeutic options in SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, or SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The findings of this study may inform subsequent antiviral interventions for patients with COVID-19. STUDY REGISTRATION: The protocol of this study has been submitted to the PROSPERO platform (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), and the registration number is CRD42020168639.

Incidence of myocardial injury in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pooled analysis of 7,679 patients from 53 studies.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become global pandemic and resulted in considerable morbidity and mortality since December 2019. Information on the incidence of myocardial injury remains scarce. METHODS: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platform were searched to identify studies that reported the myocardial injury data in COVID-19 patients. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to derive the pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of myocardial injury. Variations by disease severity were examined by subgroup analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to strengthen the results. Meta-regression was applied to explore the risk factors associated with myocardial injury. RESULTS: A total of 53 studies involving 7,679 patients were included. The pooled incidence of myocardial injury was 21% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17-25%; I2, 96.5%]. The highest incidence of myocardial injury was found in non-survivors (66%; 95 CI%, 54-78%; I2, 85.7%), followed by severe patients (43%; 95 CI%, 33-53%; I2, 93.0%) and non-severe patients (11%; 95 CI%, 7-15%; I2, 95.2%). Higher risk of myocardial injury was detected in severe patients than non-severe patients (RR, 5.74; 95% CI, 3.74-8.79; I2, 86.8%). All the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of primacy results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that myocardial injury occurred in 21% of COVID-19 patients. An elevated rate was observed in non-survivors (66%) and severe patients (43%). Severe patients had a 4.74-fold increase in the risk of myocardial injury than non-severe patients. Aggressive strategy may be considered for COVID-19 patients at high risk of myocardial injury.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (≥60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (≥60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.

A bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer of publications on COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: As a global pandemic, COVID-19 has aroused great concern in the last few months and a growing number of related researches have been published. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis of these publications may provide a direction of hot topics and future research trends. METHODS: The global literatures about COVID-19 published between 2019 and 2020 were scanned in the Web of Science collection database. "COVID-19" "Novel Coronavirus" "2019-nCoV" and "SARS-CoV-2" were used as the keywords to reach the relevant publications. VOSviewer was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these articles. RESULTS: Totally 3,626 publications on the topic of COVID-19 were identified and "COVID-19" with a total link strength of 2,649 appeared as the most frequent keyword, which had a strong link to "pneumonia" and "epidemiology". The mean citation count of the top 100 most cited articles was 96 (range, 26-883). Most of them were descriptive studies and concentrated on the clinical features. The highest-ranking journal was British medical journal with 211 publications and the most cited journal was Lancet with 2,485 citation counts. Eleven articles written by Christian Drosten from Berlin Institute of Virology have been cited for 389 times and 40 articles from Chinese Academy of Sciences have been cited for 1,597 times which are the most cited author and organization. The number of collaborators with China is 44 and the total link strength is 487. The main partners of China are USA, England and Germany. The published literatures have focused on three topics: disease management, clinical features and pathogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: The current growth trends predict a large increase in the number of global publications on COVID-19. China made the most outstanding contribution within this important field. Disease treatment, spike protein and vaccine may be hotspots in the future.