Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

TFOS lifestyle: Impact of societal challenges on the ocular surface.

Societal factors associated with ocular surface diseases were mapped using a framework to characterize the relationship between the individual, their health and environment. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigating factors on ocular surface diseases were considered in a systematic review. Age and sex effects were generally well-characterized for inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune and trauma-related conditions. Sex and gender, through biological, socio-economic, and cultural factors impact the prevalence and severity of disease, access to, and use of, care. Genetic factors, race, smoking and co-morbidities are generally well characterized, with interdependencies with geographical, employment and socioeconomic factors. Living and working conditions include employment, education, water and sanitation, poverty and socioeconomic class. Employment type and hobbies are associated with eye trauma and burns. Regional, global socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions, include remoteness, geography, seasonality, availability of and access to services. Violence associated with war, acid attacks and domestic violence are associated with traumatic injuries. The impacts of conflict, pandemic and climate are exacerbated by decreased food security, access to health services and workers. Digital technology can impact diseases through physical and mental health effects and access to health information and services. The COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigating strategies are mostly associated with an increased risk of developing new or worsening existing ocular surface diseases. Societal factors impact the type and severity of ocular surface diseases, although there is considerable interdependence between factors. The overlay of the digital environment, natural disasters, conflict and the pandemic have modified access to services in some regions.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. DESIGN: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. PARTICIPANTS: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. SETTING: International consensus. INTERVENTION: Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. RESULTS: From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. CONCLUSIONS: PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.