Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 115(8): 1286-1288, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2324863

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Although coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been associated with gastrointestinal manifestations, its effect on the pancreas remains unclear. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of hyperlipasemia in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients across 6 US centers with COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 9 (12.1%) developed hyperlipasemia, with 2 (2.8%) greater than 3 times upper limit of normal. No patient developed acute pancreatitis. Hyperlipasemia was not associated with poor outcomes or symptoms. DISCUSSION: Although a mild elevation in serum lipase was observed in some patients with COVID-19, clinical acute pancreatitis was not seen.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Lipase/blood , Pancreatitis/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Abdominal Pain/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anorexia/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nausea/epidemiology , Pancreatitis/blood , Pancreatitis/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , United States/epidemiology , Vomiting/epidemiology
2.
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e4131-e4138, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560574

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Population-based literature suggests severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection may disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minorities; however, patient-level observations of hospitalization outcomes by race/ethnicity are limited. Our aim in this study was to characterize coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated morbidity and in-hospital mortality by race/ethnicity. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 9 Massachusetts hospitals including all consecutive adult patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Measured outcomes were assessed and compared by patient-reported race/ethnicity, classified as white, black, Latinx, Asian, or other. Student t test, Fischer exact test, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients (aged 62.9 ± 16.5 years; 55.7% men) with confirmed COVID-19 were included (49.9% white, 13.7% black, 29.8% Latinx, 3.7% Asian), of which 376 (99.2%) were insured (34.3% private, 41.2% public, 23.8% public with supplement). Latinx patients were younger, had fewer cardiopulmonary disorders, were more likely to be obese, more frequently reported fever and myalgia, and had lower D-dimer levels compared with white patients (P < .05). On multivariable analysis controlling for age, gender, obesity, cardiopulmonary comorbidities, hypertension, and diabetes, no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, or mechanical ventilation by race/ethnicity were found. Diabetes was a significant predictor for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-3.23), while older age was a predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.18; 95% CI, 1.94-9.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the largest health system in Massachusetts, there was no association between race/ethnicity and clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, after controlling for key demographic/clinical characteristics. These findings serve to refute suggestions that certain races/ethnicities may be biologically predisposed to poorer COVID-19 outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Comorbidity , Ethnic and Racial Minorities , Ethnicity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Endosc Int Open ; 9(10): E1572-E1578, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428941

ABSTRACT

Background and study aims The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on gastroenterology training programs. We aimed to objectively evaluate procedural training volume and impact of COVID-19 on gastroenterology fellowship programs in the United States. Methods This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Procedure volume data on upper and lower endoscopies performed by gastroenterology fellows was abstracted directly from the electronic medical record. The study period was stratified into 2 time periods: Study Period 1, SP1 (03/15/2020 to 06/30/2020) and Study Period 2, SP2 (07/01/2020 to 12/15/2020). Procedure volumes during SP1 and SP2 were compared to Historic Period 1 (HP1) (03/15/2019 to 06/30/2019) and Historic Period 2 (HP2) (07/01/2019 to 12/15/2019) as historical reference. Results Data from 23 gastroenterology fellowship programs (total procedures = 127,958) with a median of 284 fellows (range 273-289; representing 17.8 % of all trainees in the United States) were collected. Compared to HP1, fellows performed 53.6 % less procedures in SP1 (total volume: 28,808 vs 13,378; mean 105.52 ±â€Š71.94 vs 47.61 ±â€Š41.43 per fellow; P  < 0.0001). This reduction was significant across all three training years and for both lower and upper endoscopies ( P  < 0.0001). However, the reduction in volume was more pronounced for lower endoscopy compared to upper endoscopy [59.03 % (95 % CI: 58.2-59.86) vs 48.75 % (95 % CI: 47.96-49.54); P  < 0.0001]. The procedure volume in SP2 returned to near baseline of HP2 (total volume: 42,497 vs 43,275; mean 147.05 ±â€Š96.36 vs 150.78 ±â€Š99.67; P  = 0.65). Conclusions Although there was a significant reduction in fellows' endoscopy volume in the initial stages of the pandemic, adaptive mechanisms have resulted in a return of procedure volume to near baseline without ongoing impact on endoscopy training.

7.
J Clin Gastroenterol ; 55(1): 84-87, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124738

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms have been reported with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but data on the prevalence and severity of GI symptoms in patients with cancer are limited. We sought to characterize the GI manifestations of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in oncology patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 9 Massachusetts medical centers and identified those with an active malignancy. We evaluated the prevalence and severity of GI symptoms among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with cancer. RESULTS: Of 395 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 36 (9%) had an active malignancy. Of the 36 cancer patients, 23 (63%) reported ≥1 new GI symptom. The most prevalent symptoms were anorexia (12, 52%), diarrhea (9, 39%), and vomiting (8, 35%). GI symptoms were the initial symptom in 4/36 (11%) patients, were the predominant symptom in 5/36 (14%) patients, and were severe in 4/23 (17%) patients. Four of 5 patients with GI symptoms at presentation reported concurrent fever; notably 1 patient had no fever or respiratory symptoms. Twelve (33%) patients had elevations in liver transaminases at presentation; patients with elevated transaminases were more likely to have associated GI symptoms (83% vs. 54%, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Acute GI symptoms associated with COVID-19 are highly prevalent in hospitalized cancer patients and can occur as a presenting symptom without respiratory symptoms. Symptoms are severe in a small subset of patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Gastrointestinal Diseases/virology , Neoplasms/complications , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Diseases/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Massachusetts , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
8.
Clinics ; 75:e2271-e2271, 2020.
Article in English | LILACS (Americas) | ID: grc-742570

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported &#8805;1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p&lt;0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p&lt;0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p&gt;0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.

9.
Clinics ; 75:e2212-e2212, 2020.
Article in English | LILACS (Americas) | ID: grc-742569

ABSTRACT

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.

10.
Clinics ; 75:e1989-e1989, 2020.
Article in English | LILACS (Americas) | ID: grc-742362

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented era of quality control that has necessitated advanced safety precautions and the need to ensure the adequate protection of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Endoscopy units, endoscopists, and other HCP may be at a significant risk for transmission of the virus. Given the immense burden on the healthcare system and surge in the number of patients with COVID-19, well-designed protocols and recommendations are needed. We aimed to systematically characterize our approach to endoscopic procedures in a quaternary university hospital setting and provide summary protocol recommendations. METHOD: This descriptive study details a COVID-19-specific protocol designed to minimize infection risks to patients and healthcare workers in the endoscopy unit. RESULTS: Our institution, located in São Paulo, Brazil, includes a 900-bed hospital, with a 200-bed-specific intensive care unit exclusively designed for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. We highlighted recommendations for infection prevention and control during endoscopic procedures, including appropriate triage and screening, outpatient management and procedural recommendations, role and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and role and procedural logistics involving COVID-19-positive patients. We also detailed hospital protocols for reprocessing endoscopes and cleaning rooms and also provided recommendations to minimize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19-specific administrative and clinical protocol can be replicated or adapted in multiple institutions and endoscopy units worldwide. Furthermore, the recommendations and summary protocol may improve patient and HCP safety in these trying times.

11.
Clinics (Sao Paulo) ; 75: e2271, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-910279

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adult , Aged , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , Betacoronavirus , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Male , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
12.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0239536, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-807661

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has created unprecedented medical challenges. There remains a need for validated risk prediction models to assess short-term mortality risk among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a 7-day and 14-day mortality risk prediction model for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study with a separate multicenter cohort for external validation using two hospitals in New York, NY, and 9 hospitals in Massachusetts, respectively. A total of 664 patients in NY and 265 patients with COVID-19 in Massachusetts, hospitalized from March to April 2020. RESULTS: We developed a risk model consisting of patient age, hypoxia severity, mean arterial pressure and presence of kidney dysfunction at hospital presentation. Multivariable regression model was based on risk factors selected from univariable and Chi-squared automatic interaction detection analyses. Validation was by receiver operating characteristic curve (discrimination) and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit (GOF) test (calibration). In internal cross-validation, prediction of 7-day mortality had an AUC of 0.86 (95%CI 0.74-0.98; GOF p = 0.744); while 14-day had an AUC of 0.83 (95%CI 0.69-0.97; GOF p = 0.588). External validation was achieved using 265 patients from an outside cohort and confirmed 7- and 14-day mortality prediction performance with an AUC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.78-0.92; GOF p = 0.340) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.76-0.89; GOF p = 0.471) respectively, along with excellent calibration. Retrospective data collection, short follow-up time, and development in COVID-19 epicenter may limit model generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-AID risk tool is a well-calibrated model that demonstrates accuracy in the prediction of both 7-day and 14-day mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This prediction score could assist with resource utilization, patient and caregiver education, and provide a risk stratification instrument for future research trials.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Logistic Models , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Risk Assessment/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Massachusetts , Middle Aged , New York , Pandemics , ROC Curve , Regression Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
13.
Clinics (Sao Paulo) ; 75: e2212, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713895

ABSTRACT

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
15.
Liver Int ; 40(10): 2515-2521, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-645258

ABSTRACT

Liver injury has been described with COVID-19, and early reports suggested 2%-11% of patients had chronic liver disease (CLD). In this multicentre retrospective study, we evaluated hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and the impact of CLD on relevant clinical outcomes. Of 363 patients included, 19% had CLD, including 15.2% with NAFLD. Patients with CLD had longer length of stay. After controlling for age, gender, obesity, cardiac diseases, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes and pulmonary disorders, CLD and NAFLD were independently associated with ICU admission ([aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.03-3.04] and [aOR 2.30, 95% CI 1.27-4.17]) and mechanical ventilation ([aOR 2.08, 95% CI 1.20-3.60] and [aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.18-3.91]). Presence of cirrhosis was an independent predictor of mortality (aOR 12.5, 95% CI 2.16-72.5). Overall, nearly one-fifth of hospitalized COVID-19 patients had CLD, which was associated with more critical illness. Future studies are needed to identify interventions to improve clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Liver Cirrhosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology
16.
Clinics (Sao Paulo) ; 75: e1989, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-608407

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented era of quality control that has necessitated advanced safety precautions and the need to ensure the adequate protection of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Endoscopy units, endoscopists, and other HCP may be at a significant risk for transmission of the virus. Given the immense burden on the healthcare system and surge in the number of patients with COVID-19, well-designed protocols and recommendations are needed. We aimed to systematically characterize our approach to endoscopic procedures in a quaternary university hospital setting and provide summary protocol recommendations. METHOD: This descriptive study details a COVID-19-specific protocol designed to minimize infection risks to patients and healthcare workers in the endoscopy unit. RESULTS: Our institution, located in São Paulo, Brazil, includes a 900-bed hospital, with a 200-bed-specific intensive care unit exclusively designed for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. We highlighted recommendations for infection prevention and control during endoscopic procedures, including appropriate triage and screening, outpatient management and procedural recommendations, role and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and role and procedural logistics involving COVID-19-positive patients. We also detailed hospital protocols for reprocessing endoscopes and cleaning rooms and also provided recommendations to minimize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19-specific administrative and clinical protocol can be replicated or adapted in multiple institutions and endoscopy units worldwide. Furthermore, the recommendations and summary protocol may improve patient and HCP safety in these trying times.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Endoscopy/standards , Hospitals, University/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Brazil , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Endoscopy/methods , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL