Role of platelet-to-lymphocyte count ratio (PLR), as a prognostic indicator in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Prognostic predictors are of paramount interest for prompt intervention and optimal utilization of the healthcare system in the ongoing context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The platelet-to-lymphocyte count ratio (PLR), has emerged as a potential tool for risk stratification of critically ill patients with sepsis. The current systematic review explores the utility of PLR as a prognostic predictor of COVID-19 patients. We screened the electronic databases until May 15, 2021 after enrolling in PROSPERO (CRD42021220269). Studies evaluating the association between PLR on admission and outcomes in terms of mortality and severity among COVID-19 patients were included. We retrieved 32 studies, with a total of 2768 and 3262 COVID-19 patients for mortality and disease severity outcomes. Deceased and critically ill patients had higher PLR levels on admission in comparison to survivors and non-severe patients (mean differences [MD] = 66.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.75-84.44; p < 0.00001 and MD = 86.74; 95% CI: 67.7-105.7; p < 0.00001, respectively). A higher level of PLR on admission in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, the evidence is of low quality and further studies regarding the cut-off value of PLR are the need of the hour.

Convalescent Plasma-A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

In the absence of a definitive therapy during this ongoing unprecedented crisis, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) has shown some promising results. This review summarizes the existing evidence of the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients based upon scientific publications to date. We have included only the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through an extensive screening of electronic databases up to July 31, 2021. In 19 RCTs, with a total of 16,476 COVID-19 patients we found low-quality evidence of significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.96, I2 = 40%), better clinical outcome when applied <7 days (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.28-3.53, I2 = 0%), and improved viral clearance (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3-5.45, I2 = 74%). Meta-regression analysis found that as a covariate, intubation on admission (p = 0.007) had a significant impact. However, there was any significant reduction neither in duration for clinical improvement (MD = -0.79, 95% CI: -2.76-1.18, I2 = 98%), nor in total period of hospital stay (MD = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.75-0.78, I2 = 81%). Early application of CPT is still relevant in reducing morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients and is too early to write it off as a potential therapeutic modality for COVID-19 patients. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Sarkar S, Khanna P, Singh AK. Convalescent -Plasma-A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(11):1292-1300.

The Impact of Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Count Ratio in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLR) has emerged as a potential prognostic tool for different diseases. In the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the NLR may be a useful tool for risk scarification and the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal value of NLR, and the association with disease severity and mortality. Thus, this study aims to systematically analyze the current evidence of the utility of baseline NLR as a predictive tool for mortality, disease severity in COVID-19 patients. Methods: A compendious screening of electronic databases up to June 15, 2021, was done after enlisting the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020202659). Studies evaluating the utility of baseline NLR in COVID-19 are included for this review as per the PRISMA statement. Results: We retrieved a total of 13112 and 12986 COVID-19 patients for survivability and severity over 90 studies. The expired and critically sick patients had elevated baseline NLR on admission, in comparison to survivors and noncritical patients. (SMD = 3.82; 95% CI: 2.79-4.85; I2 = 100% and SMD = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.22-1.63; I2 = 95%, respectively). The summary receiver operating curve analysis for mortality (AUC = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.86-0.87; I2 = 94.7%), and severity (AUC = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.80-0.84; I2 = 79.7%) were also suggestive of its significant predictive value. Conclusions: The elevated NLR on admission in COVID-19 patients is associated with poor outcomes.

Comparative evaluation of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill COVID- 19 and patients infected with other corona viruses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with an unprecedented requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thereby significantly increasing the risk of secondary nosocomial pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Our study aims to identify the overall incidence of VAP, common organisms associated with it, and outcome in COVID-19 patients in comparison to the non-SARS-CoV-2 infected critically ill ventilated COVID-19 patients. A comprehensive screening was conducted using major electronic databases), from January 1st 2020 to May 31st 2021, as per the PRISMA statement. In our rapid review, we included a total of 34 studies (involving 8901 cases. Overall VAP was reported in 48.15 % (95% CI 42.3%-54%) mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and the mortality rate was 51.4% (95% CI 42.5%-60%). COVID-19 patients had increased risk of VAP and mortality in comparison to other non-SARS-CoV-2 viral pneumonia (OR=2.33; 95%CI 1.75-3.11; I2=15%, and OR=1.46; 95%CI 1.15-1.86; I2=0% respectively). Critically ill COVID-19 patients are prone to develop VAP, which worsens the outcome.

Superadded Coinfections and Antibiotic Resistance in the Context of COVID-19: Where do We Stand?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Poor outcomes in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been attributed to superadded bacterial coinfections. The World Health Organization has reported overzealous usage of broad-spectrum antibiotics during this current pandemic raising concerns of increasing antimicrobial resistance? Therefore, the knowledge of coinfection and the common pathogens during these challenging times is essential for antibiotic stewardship practices. RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence of reported superimposed bacterial and viral coinfections in COVID-19 patients is around 0.04 to 17%. However, more than 70% of patients have received broad-spectrum antibiotics. The presence of a simultaneous coinfection can be suspected in patients with neutrophilic lymphocytosis and elevated procalcitonin in the setting of COVID-19. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels, with its short turnaround time, aid in the definitive diagnosis of possible coinfection. Acinetobacter baumanii, Mycoplasma pneumonia, influenza virus, Aspergillus, Candida, etc., are commonly implicated pathogens. SUMMARY: Rapid characterization of coinfection and avoidance of overzealous use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in COVID-19 patients are the key to prevent antibiotic resistance during this pandemic. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kayarat B, Khanna P, Sarkar S. Superadded Coinfections and Antibiotic Resistance in the Context of COVID-19: Where do We Stand? Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(6):699-703.

Role of red blood cell distribution width, as a prognostic indicator in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The red blood cell distribution width (RDW), an indicator of anisocytosis has emerged as a potential tool for risk stratification of critically ill patients with sepsis. Prognostic predictors are of paramount interest for prompt intervention and optimal utilization of the healthcare system in this ongoing context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the utility of RDW in the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. A comprehensive screening of electronic databases was performed up to 30th April 2021 after enrolling in PROSPERO (CRD42020206685). Observational studies or interventional studies, evaluating the impact of RDW in COVID-19 outcomes (mortality and severity) are included in this meta-analysis.Our search retrieved 25 studies, with a total of 18,392 and 3,446 COVID-19 patients for mortality and disease severity outcomes. Deceased and critically ill patients had higher RDW levels on admission in comparison to survivors and non-severe patients (SMD = 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.71; I2  = 88% and SMD = 0.46; 95%CI 0.26-0.67; I2  = 60%, respectively). In a sub-group analysis of 2,980 patients, RDW > 14.5 has been associated with increased risk of mortality (OR = 2.73; 95%CI 1.96-3.82; I2  = 56%). However, the evidences is of low quality. A higher level of RDW on admission in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, further studies regarding the cut-off value of RDW are the need of the hour.

In Pursuit of Freedom from COVID-19 Awareness in India: An Infodemiological Analysis.

How to cite this article: Sarkar S, Khanna P. In Pursuit of Freedom from COVID-19 Awareness in India: An Infodemiological Analysis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(4):470-472.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients with concurrent co-infections: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

The burden and impact of secondary superadded infections in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is widely acknowledged. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the impact of COVID-19 in patients with tuberculosis, HIV, chronic hepatitis, and other concurrent infections. This review was conducted to evaluate the consequence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with concurrent co-infections based on the publications reported to date. An extensive comprehensive screening was conducted using electronic databases up to 3rd September 2020 after obtaining registration with PROSPERO (CRD420202064800). The observational studies or interventional studies in English, evaluating the impact of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with concurrent infections are included for the meta-analyses. Our search retrieved 20 studies, with a total of 205,702 patients. Patients with tuberculosis (RR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.75-2.51; I2 = 0%), influenza (RR = 2.04; 95% CI, 0.15-28.25, I2 = 99%) have an increased risk of mortality during a co-infection with SARS-CoV-2. No significant impact is found in people living with HIV (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19; I2 = 30%), Chronic hepatitis (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.73-1.81; I2 = 10%). Several countries (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, and Singapore) are on the verge of a dengue co epidemic (cumulative 878,496 and 5,028,380 cases of dengue and COVID-19 respectively). The impact of COVID-19 in patients of concurrent infections with either tuberculosis or influenza is detrimental. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV or chronic hepatitis patients are comparable to COVID-19 patients without these concurrent infections.

Are the steroids a blanket solution for COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Steroids may play a critical role in the current pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), given the dearth of specific therapeutic options. This review was conducted to evaluate the impact of glucocorticoid therapy in patients with COVID-19 based on the publications reported to date. A comprehensive screening was conducted using electronic databases up to August 19, 2020. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of steroids in patients with COVID-19 are included for the meta-analyses. Our search retrieved twelve studies, including two RCTs and 10 cohort studies, with a total of 15,754 patients. In patients with COVID-19, the use of systemic glucocorticoid neither reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-3.4, I2 = 96%), nor the duration of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = 1.18 days, 95% CI: -1.28 to 3.64, I2 = 93%) and period of viral shedding (MD = 1.42 days, 95% CI: -0.52 to 3.37, I2 = 0%). Systemic steroid therapy may not be effective for reducing mortality, duration of hospitalization, and period of viral shedding. Studies are mostly heterogeneous. Further RCTs are required.

Convalescent plasma is a clutch at straws in COVID-19 management! A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the absence of definitive therapy for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) may be a critical therapeutic option. This review was conducted to evaluate the impact of CPT in COVID-19 patients based on the publications reported to date. A robust screening of electronic databases was conducted up to 10th July 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with a control group evaluating the effectiveness and safety of CPT in patients with COVID-19 are included for the meta-analyses. Our search retrieved seven studies, including two RCTs and five cohort studies, with a total of 5444 patients. In patients with COVID-19, the use of CPT reduces mortality (odd's ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.77), increases viral clearance (OR, 11.29; 95% CI, 4.9-25.9) and improves clinically (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.9). However, the evidence is of low quality (mortality reduction, and viral clearance), and very low quality (clinical improvement). CPT may be beneficial for reducing mortality, viral shedding and improving clinical conditions in COVID-19 patients. However, further randomized control trials (RCT) are required to substantiate the safety margin, initiation, optimal dosage, titre and duration of CPT.

Pulmonary Fibrosis in COVID-19 Recovered Patients: Problem and Potential Management.

How to cite this article: B, Khanna P, Sarkar S. Pulmonary Fibrosis in COVID-19 Recovered Patients: Problem and Potential Management. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):242-244.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula, a Boon or a Bane for COVID-19 Patients? An Evidence-Based Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review instantiates the efficacy and safety of HFNC in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Globally, the healthcare system is facing an unprecedented crisis of resources due to the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, fatigue, and pneumonia are the most common symptoms associated with it. The incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU patients ranges from 29.1 to 89.9%. Supplemental oxygen therapy is the main stay treatment for managing hypoxemic respiratory failure. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel non-invasive strategy for better oxygenation and ventilation in critically ill patients. In this grim scenario, a reduction in mechanical ventilation by means of HFNC is of prime interest. SUMMARY: HFNC is considered an aerosol-generating intervention with the risk of viral aerosolization with a concern of potential nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is no consensus regarding the use of HFNC in novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). HFNC seems to be an effective and safe treatment modality in acute respiratory failure with optimal settings and selection of ideal patients.

Eyes Have It: From COVID-19 Perspective.

How to cite this article: Sarkar S, Khanna P. Eyes Have It: From COVID-19 Perspective. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(11):1139-1140.