Association Analysis of Hyperlipidemia with the 28-Day All-Cause Mortality of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Patients.

Objective This study aimed to determine the association of hyperlipidemia with clinical endpoints among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially those with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and diabetes. Methods This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 from 21 hospitals in Hubei province, China between December 31, 2019 and April 21, 2020. Patients who were aged < 18 or ≥ 85 years old, in pregnancy, with acute lethal organ injury (e.g., acute myocardial infarction, severe acute pancreatitis, acute stroke), hypothyroidism, malignant diseases, severe malnutrition, and those with normal lipid profile under lipid-lowering medicines (e.g., statin, niacin, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, and ezetimibe) were excluded. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis at 1:1 ratio was performed to minimize baseline differences between patient groups of hyperlipidemia and non-hyperlipidemia. PSM analyses with the same strategies were further conducted for the parameters of hyperlipidemia in patients with increased triglyceride (TG), increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Mixed-effect Cox model analysis was performed to investigate the associations of the 28-days all-cause deaths of COVID-19 patients with hyperlipidemia and the abnormalities of lipid parameters. The results were verified in male, female patients, and in patients with pre-existing CVDs and type 2 diabetes. Results Of 10 945 inpatients confirmed as COVID-19, there were 9822 inpatients included in the study, comprising 3513 (35.8%) cases without hyperlipidemia and 6309 (64.2%) cases with hyperlipidemia. Based on a mixed-effect Cox model after PSM at 1:1 ratio, hyperlipidemia was not associated with increased or decreased 28-day all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.17 (95% CI, 0.95-1.44), P =0.151]. We found that the parameters of hyperlipidemia were not associated with the risk of 28-day all-cause mortality [adjusted HR, 1.23 (95% CI, 0.98-1.55), P = 0.075 in TG increase group; 0.78 (95% CI, 0.57-1.07), P = 0.123 in LDL-C increase group; and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.9-1.39), P = 0.299 in HDL-C decrease group, respectively]. Hyperlipidemia was also not significantly associated with the increased mortality of COVID-19 in patients accompanied with CVDs or type 2 diabetes, and in both male and female cohorts. Conclusion Our study support that the imbalanced lipid profile is not significantly associated with the 28-day all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients, even in those accompanied with CVDs or diabetes. Similar results were also obtained in subgroup analyses of abnormal lipid parameters. Therefore, hyperlipidemia might be not a major causative factor for poor outcome of COVID-19, which provides guidance for the intervention of inpatients during the epidemic of COVID-19.

Prevalence of mental health problems in frontline healthcare workers after the first outbreak of COVID-19 in China: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: More than 210,000 medical workers have fought against the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei in China since December 2019. However, the prevalence of mental health problems in frontline medical staff after fighting COVID-19 is still unknown. METHODS: Medical workers in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei Province were invited to participate a cross-sectional and convenience sampling online survey, which assessed the prevalence of anxiety, insomnia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: A total of 1,091 responses (33% male and 67% female) were valid for statistical analysis. The prevalence was anxiety 53%, insomnia 79%, depression 56%, and PTSD 11%. Healthcare workers in Wuhan were more likely to face risks of anxiety (56% vs. 52%, P = 0.03) and PTSD (15% vs. 9%, P = 0.03) than those in other cities of Hubei. In terms of educational attainment, those with doctoral and masters' (D/M) degrees may experience more anxiety (median of 7.0, [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-8.5] vs. median 5.0 [IQR 5.0-8.0], P = 0.02) and PTSD (median 26.0 [IQR 19.5-33.0] vs. median 23.0 [IQR 19.0-31.0], P = 0.04) than those with lower educational degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The mental problems were an important issue for the healthcare workers after COVID-19. Thus, an early intervention on such mental problems is necessary for healthcare workers.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy for Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in Wuhan, China: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Currently, little in-depth evidence is known about the application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This retrospective multicenter cohort study included patients with COVID-19 at 7 designated hospitals in Wuhan, China. The patients were followed up until June 30, 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the risk factors associated with unsuccessful ECMO weaning. Propensity score matching was used to match patients who received veno-venous ECMO with those who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)-only therapy. Of 88 patients receiving ECMO therapy, 27 and 61 patients were and were not successfully weaned from ECMO, respectively. Additionally, 15, 15, and 65 patients were further weaned from IMV, discharged from hospital, or died during hospitalization, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, a lymphocyte count ≤0.5×109/L and D-dimer concentration >4× the upper limit of normal level at ICU admission, a peak PaCO2 >60 mmHg at 24 h before ECMO initiation, and no tracheotomy performed during the ICU stay were independently associated with lower odds of ECMO weaning. In the propensity score-matched analysis, a mixed-effect Cox model detected a lower hazard ratio for 120-day all-cause mortality after ICU admission during hospitalization in the ECMO group. The presence of lymphocytopenia, higher D-dimer concentrations at ICU admission and hypercapnia before ECMO initiation could help to identify patients with a poor prognosis. Tracheotomy could facilitate weaning from ECMO. ECMO relative to IMV-only therapy was associated with improved outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

No significant association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and adverse outcomes of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) is commonly targeted to achieve glycemic control and has potent anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory effects. Recent structural analyses indicated a potential tight interaction between DPP4 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), raising a promising hypothesis that DPP4 inhibitor (DPP4i) drugs might be an optimal strategy for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients with diabetes. However, there has been no direct clinical evidence illuminating the associations between DPP4i use and COVID-19 outcomes. AIM: To illuminate the associations between DPP4i usage and the adverse outcomes of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis including 2563 patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 at 16 hospitals in Hubei Province, China. After excluding ineligible individuals, 142 patients who received DPP4i drugs and 1115 patients who received non-DPP4i oral anti-diabetic drugs were included in the subsequent analysis. We performed a strict propensity score matching (PSM) analysis where age, sex, comorbidities, number of oral hypoglycemic agents, heart rate, blood pressure, pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 95%, CT diagnosed bilateral lung lesions, laboratory indicators, and proportion of insulin usage were matched. Finally, 111 participants treated with DPP4i drugs were successfully matched to 333 non-DPP4i users. Then, a linear logistic model and mixed-effect Cox model were applied to analyze the associations between in-hospital DPP4i use and adverse outcomes of COVID-19. RESULTS: After rigorous matching and further adjustments for imbalanced variables in the linear logistic model and Cox adjusted model, we found that there was no significant association between in-hospital DPP4i use (DPP4i group) and 28-d all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.09-2.11, P = 0.31). Likewise, the incidences and risks of secondary outcomes, including septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute organ (kidney, liver, and cardiac) injuries, were also comparable between the DPP4i and non-DPP4i groups. The performance of DPP4i agents in achieving glucose control (e.g., the median level of fasting blood glucose and random blood glucose) and inflammatory regulation was approximately equivalent in the DPP4i and non-DPP4i groups. Furthermore, we did not observe substantial side effects such as uncontrolled glycemia or acidosis due to DPP4i application relative to the use of non-DPP4i agents in the study cohort. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that DPP4i use is not significantly associated with poor outcomes of COVID-19 or other adverse effects of anti-diabetic treatment. The data support the continuation of DPP4i agents for diabetes management in the setting of COVID-19.