Associastion of In-hospital Use of Statins, Aspirin, and Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Inhibitors with Mortality and ICU Admission Due to COVID-19.

The exaggerated host response to Sars-CoV-2 plays an important role in COVID-19 pathology but provides a therapeutic opportunity until definitive virus targeted therapies and vaccines become available. Given a central role of endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation, repurposing ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), statins, and aspirin has been of interest. In this retrospective, single-center study, we evaluated the primary outcomes of mortality and ICU admission in 587 hospitalized patients with documented COVID-19 with or without ACEIs, ARBs, statins, and aspirin. Atorvastatin was associated with reduced mortality, which persisted after adjusting for age, lockdown status, and other medications (OR: 0.18. 95% CI: 0.06-0.49, P = 0.001). ACEIs were also associated with reduced mortality in the crude model (OR: 0.20, CI: 0.06-0.66, P = 0.008), as ACEIs and ARBs were combined as a single group (OR: 0.35, CI: 0.16-0.75, P = 0.007), although ARBs alone did not reach statistical significance. There was no association between any medications and risk of ICU admission. Aspirin only achieved a significant association of reduced mortality in a subgroup of patients with diabetes in the crude model (OR: 0.17, CI: 0.04-0.80, P = 0.02). The reduced mortality observed with atorvastatin is consistent with other literature, and consideration should be given to atorvastatin as a COVID-19 treatment. While there was suggested benefit of ACEIs and ARBs in the present study, other studies are varied and further studies are warranted to recommend employing these medications as a treatment strategy. Nevertheless, this study combined with others continues to give credibility that ACEIs and ARBs are safe to continue in the setting of COVID-19.

The Level of Procalcitonin in Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is data from individual clinical trials suggesting that procalcitonin (PCT) may be a prognostic factor in the severity of COVID-19 disease. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate PCT levels in severe COVID-19 patients. We searched Embase, ProQuest, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ISI/Web of Science for studies that reported the level of PCT of patient with severe COVID-19. We included all studies regardless of design that reported the level of PCT in patients with severe COVID-19. We excluded articles not regarding COVID-19 or not reporting PCT level, studies not in severe patients, review articles, editorials or letters, expert opinions, comments, and animal studies. Nine studies were included in the analysis. The odds of having more severe COVID-19 disease was higher in subjects with elevated PCT (≥0.05 ng/mL) compared with those having low procalcitonin (<0.05 ng/mL) [n = 6, OR(95% CI) = 2.91(1.14, 7.42), p = 0.025). After estimating the mean and standard deviation values from the sample size, median, and interquartile range, a pooled effect analysis indicated higher serum PCT concentrations in patients with severe versus less severe disease [n = 6, SMD(95% CI) = 0.64(0.02, 1.26), p = 0.042]. The results of this study showed that PCT is increased in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Comparison of the severity of psychological distress among four groups of an Iranian population regarding COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused serious psychological problems, including panic attack, anxiety, stress, and depression. The main objective of this study was to measure the prevalence and compare the severity of this psychological distress among four groups of an Iranian population. METHOD: In a cross-sectional survey, the mental health status of four groups of an Iranian society including community population, patients with COVID-19, medical staff, and medical students were investigated by the self-report questionnaire of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS). DASS-21 questionnaire and the demographic data sheet were filled out by the participants. All statistical analyses were done using R version 3.6.1 software. P-values less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. ANOVA test was used to compare the severity of stress, anxiety, and depression between the four study groups. RESULTS: Of the 886 participants in this survey, 554 (62.5%) were men and 332 (37.5%) were women, and the mean ± standard division of age was 40.91 ± 10.7 years. Among these participants, 241 (27.2%) were selected from community population, 221 (24.9%) were patients with COVID-19, 217 (24.5%) were medical staff, and 207 (23.4%) were medical students. The mean score of stress, anxiety, and depression in medical students and patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher than in medical staff and community population (P < 0.05). Overall, the anxiety score in men was higher than that in women (27.4 ± 4.6 vs. 26.48 ± 4.8, P = 0.006), and unmarried participants had a significantly higher depression score compared with the married group (27.5 ± 4.8 vs. 26.7 ± 4.6, P = 0.023). In addition, the score of depression was higher in female medical staff (27.08 ± 4.6 vs. 25.33 ± 4.3, P = 0.011) and community population (26.6 ± 4.3 vs. 25.3 ± 4.3, P = 0.02) than in male. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients and medical students in contact with these patients were at a high risk for mental illness due to lower experience compared with professional medical staff and community population. Continuous surveillance and monitoring of psychological distress for outbreaks should become a routine part of preparedness efforts worldwide.