ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic ancestry or racial differences in health outcomes exist in diseases associated with systemic inflammation (eg, COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the association of genetic ancestry and race with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), which is characterized by acute systemic inflammation, multi-organ failure, and high risk of short-term death. METHODS: This prospective cohort study analyzed a comprehensive set of data, including genetic ancestry and race among several others, in 1274 patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis who were nonelectively admitted to 44 hospitals from 7 Latin American countries. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-five patients (31.0%) had ACLF of any grade at enrollment. Patients with ACLF had a higher median percentage of Native American genetic ancestry and lower median percentage of European ancestry than patients without ACLF (22.6% vs 12.9% and 53.4% vs 59.6%, respectively). The median percentage of African genetic ancestry was low among patients with ACLF and among those without ACLF. In terms of race, a higher percentage of patients with ACLF than patients without ACLF were Native American and a lower percentage of patients with ACLF than patients without ACLF were European American or African American. In multivariable analyses that adjusted for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the odds ratio for ACLF at enrollment was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.03-1.13) with Native American genetic ancestry and 2.57 (95% CI, 1.84-3.58) for Native American race vs European American race CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of Latin American patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis, increasing percentages of Native American ancestry and Native American race were factors independently associated with ACLF at enrollment.
ABSTRACT
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to conditional emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding vaccine safety. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce endogenous production of Spike. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in groups excluded from clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. As for any investigational biomedical program, data safety monitoring boards (DSMB) and event adjudication committees (EAC), should be enacting risk mitigation. If DSMBs and EACs do not do so, we will call for a pause in mass vaccination. If DSMBs and EACs do not exist, then vaccination should be halted immediately, in particular for demographic groups at highest risk of vaccine-associated death or serious adverse effects, during such time as it takes to assemble these boards and commence critical and independent assessments. We urge for pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers, particularly if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Systematic reviews of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients focus on the incidence, primary and secondary venous thromboembolism prevention, bleeding complications, and the association of D-dimer with mortality. We analyzed therapeutic approaches, outcomes, clinical presentation, risk stratification, and patient characteristics that survived and did not survive.Methods: We searched for systematic reviews, cohorts, case series, case reports, editor letters, and venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients' abstracts following PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. The objective was to assess therapeutic trends and clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients. Inclusion: COVID-19 patients with venous thromboembolism confirmed by an imaging method (venous doppler ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion lung scan, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, pulmonary angiography). We assessed the original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index in two groups, survivors and those who died. We defined major bleedings according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.Results: We performed a systematic review from August 9 to August 30, 2020. We collected 1,535 papers from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, and Opengrey. We extracted data from 89 studies. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin drove parenteral anticoagulation. The Food and Drug Administration-approved alteplase regimen guided the advanced treatment in both groups. The mortality was high (21.6%), with a low incidence of bleeding complications in those who survived: Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class II and III identified patients who lived. Patients who experienced venous thromboembolism events at home were more likely to live than in-hospital events. Patients who died had a higher D dimer expression and right ventricular dysfunction.Conclusions: We determined a high mortality incidence of pulmonary embolism (21.6%) related to hypertension, an increased inflammatory response, prothrombotic state, severe COVID-19, massive pulmonary embolism, intensive care unit admission, low venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and bleeding complications. The original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index could be helpful in the risk stratification. Overlapping severe COVID-19 pneumonia and pulmonary embolism is a challenge.