In-Hospital Mortality and Morbidity in Cancer Patients with COVID-19: A Nationwide Analysis from the United States.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused significant mortality and mortality worldwide. There is limited information describing the outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Methods: We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020 database to collect information on cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding system, adult (≥18 years) patients with COVID-19 were identified. Adjusted analyses were performed to assess for mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization among cancer patients. Results: A total of 1,050,045 patients were included. Of them, 27,760 had underlying cancer. Cancer patients were older and had more comorbidities. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate in cancer patients was 17.58% vs. 11% in non-cancer. After adjusted logistic regression, cancer patients had a 21% increase in the odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality compared with those without cancer (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21, 95%CI 1.12−1.31, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, an increased odds in acute respiratory failure rate was found (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.06−1.22, p-value < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in the odds of septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Additionally, no significant differences in the mean length of hospital stay and the total hospitalization charges between cancer and non-cancer patients. Conclusion: Cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had increased odds of all-cause in hospital mortality and acute respiratory failure compared with non-cancer patients.

Association between Body Mass Index and Hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There is limited information describing the hospital outcomes of COVID-19 patients in regard to specific body mass index (BMI) categories. METHODS: We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020 database to collect information on patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding system, adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary hospitalization for COVID-19 were identified. Adjusted analyses were performed to assess for mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization, and compare the outcomes among patients categorized according to BMI. RESULTS: A total of 305,284 patients were included in this study. Of them, 248,490 had underlying obesity, defined as BMI ≥ 30. The oldest patients were observed to have BMI < 19, while youngest patients were in the BMI > 50 category. BMI < 19 category had the highest crude in-hospital mortality rate. However, after adjusted regression, patients with BMI > 50 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.48-1.79, p-value < 0.001) had the highest increased odds, at 63%, of in-hospital mortality compared to all other patients in the study. Patients with BMI > 50 also had the highest increased odds of needing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality associated with IMV compared to all other patient, by 37% and 61%, respectively. Obese patients were noted to have shorter average hospital length of stay (LOS), by 1.07 days, compared to non-obese patients, but there was no significant difference in average hospitalization charges. CONCLUSION: Among obese patients primarily hospitalized with COVID-19, those with BMI ≥ 40 had significantly increased rates of all-cause in-hospital mortality, need for IMV, mortality associated with IMV, and septic shock. Overall, obese patients had shorter average hospital LOS, however, did not have significantly higher hospitalization charges.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis in the COVID-19 Era

Introduction In the COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize aerosol-generating procedures, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized at our institution as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for diagnosing infective endocarditis (IE). Methods This retrospective study evaluated the clinical utility of CMR for detecting IE among 14 patients growing typical microorganisms on blood cultures or meeting modified Duke criteria. Results 7 cases were treated for IE. In 2 cases, CMR results were notable for possible leaflet vegetations and were clinically meaningful in guiding antibiotic therapy, obtaining further imaging, and/or pursuing surgical intervention. In 2 cases, vegetations were missed on CMR but detected on TEE. In 3 cases, CMR was nondiagnostic, but patients were treated empirically. There was no difference in antibiotic duration or outcomes over 1 year. Conclusion CMR demonstrated mixed results in diagnosing valvular vegetations and guiding clinical decision making. Further prospective controlled trials of CMR vs TEE are warranted.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been widely used in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19. However, the impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of HFNC versus NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched through February 10, 2022, for eligible studies comparing HFNC and NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. Our primary outcome was intubation. The secondary outcomes were mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and PaO2 /FIO2 changes. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained using a random-effect model. Prediction intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 3,606 subjects (1,880 received HFNC and 1,726 received NIV) were included. There were no differences in intubation (RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.85-1.20], P = .89) or LOS (MD 0.38 d [95% CI -0.61 to 1.37], P = .45) between groups, with consistent results on the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mortality was lower in NIV (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66-0.98], P = .03). However, the prediction interval was 0.41-1.59, and subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in mortality between groups. There was a greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV (MD 22.80 [95% CI 5.30-40.31], P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that despite the greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV, intubation rates and LOS were similar between HFNC and NIV. Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, the prediction interval included the null value, and there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of RCTs. Future large-scale RCTs are necessary to support our findings.

Pulse versus nonpulse steroid regimens in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systemic steroids are associated with reduced mortality in hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on the doses of steroid therapy in these patients. Several studies showed that pulse dose steroids (PDS) could reduce the progression of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, data regarding the role of PDS in COVID-19 is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of PDS in COVID-19 patients compared to nonpulse steroids (NPDS). Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 10, 2022 was performed for all published studies comparing PDS to NPDS therapy to manage hypoxic patients with COVID-19. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse events in the form of superimposed infections. A total of 10 observational studies involving 3065 patients (1289 patients received PDS and 1776 received NPDS) were included. The mortality rate was similar between PDS and NPDS groups (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.65, p = 0.16). There were no differences in the need for endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.71, 95%: CI 0.37-1.137, p = 0.31), LOS (mean difference: 1.93 days; 95% CI: -1.46-5.33; p = 0.26), or adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.57, p = 0.80) between the two groups. Compared to NPDS, PDS was associated with similar mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, LOS, and adverse events. Given the observational nature of the included studies, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Fluvoxamine in Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19 Infection and the Lack of Efficacy in Reducing Rates of Hospitalization, Mechanical Ventilation, and Mortality in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent. STUDY QUESTION: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCE: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index. RESULTS: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P = 0.16, I2 = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P = 0.19, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Effect of Prone Positioning on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Subjects With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been recently proposed as an adjunctive treatment for non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring oxygen therapy to improve oxygenation and reduce the risk of intubation. However, the magnitude of the effect of APP on clinical outcomes in these patients remains uncertain. We performed a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of APP to improve the clinical outcomes in non-intubated subjects with COVID-19. METHODS: The primary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation and mortality. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 9 observational studies) involving 3,324 subjects (1,495 received APP and 1,829 did not) were included. There was a significant reduction in the mortality rate in APP group compared to control (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.51-0.90]; P = .008, I2 = 52%) with no significant effect on intubation (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.66-1.08]; P = .17, I2 = 63%) or hospital length of stay (mean difference -3.09 d [95% CI-10.14-3.96]; P = .39, I2 = 97%). Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed significant reduction in intubation rate (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.97]; P = .02, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: APP has the potential to reduce the in-hospital mortality rate in COVID-19 subjects with hypoxemia without a significant effect on the need for intubation or length of hospital stay. However, there was a significant decrease in the need for intubation on subgroup analysis of RCTs. More large-scale trials with a standardized protocol for prone positioning are needed to better evaluate its effectiveness in this select population.

Clinical significance of micronutrient supplements in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Micronutrient supplements such as vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc have been used in managing viral illnesses. However, the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases through December 5th, 2021. All individual micronutrients reported by ≥ 3 studies and compared with standard-of-care (SOC) were included. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies (10 randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) involving 5633 COVID-19 patients that compared three individual micronutrient supplements (vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc) with SOC. Nine studies evaluated vitamin C in 1488 patients (605 in vitamin C and 883 in SOC). Vitamin C supplementation had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.62, P = 1.00), intubation rate (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.56-5.56, P = 0.33), or LOS (MD 0.64; 95% CI -1.70, 2.99; P = 0.59). Fourteen studies assessed the impact of vitamin D on mortality among 3497 patients (927 in vitamin D and 2570 in SOC). Vitamin D did not reduce mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.17, P = 0.21) but reduced intubation rate (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, P = 0.04) and LOS (MD -1.26; 95% CI -2.27, -0.25; P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a mortality benefit in patients receiving vitamin D pre or post COVID-19 diagnosis. Five studies, including 738 patients, compared zinc intake with SOC (447 in zinc and 291 in SOC). Zinc supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction of mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.03, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Individual micronutrient supplementations, including vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc, were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19. Vitamin D may be associated with lower intubation rate and shorter LOS, but vitamin C did not reduce intubation rate or LOS. Further research is needed to validate our findings.