Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in Bali, Indonesia.

INTRODUCTION: The spectrum of illness and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may vary. This study reports the characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Bali, Indonesia, and evaluates the diagnostic value of their clinical symptoms. METHOD: This observational study was conducted in eight hospitals. The patients were classified as non-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and non-COVID-19. Demographics, clinical, laboratory, and radiologic characteristics, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients were collected. Factors associated with the severity and outcomes were assessed using the chi-squared test or ANOVA when appropriate. We also compared the clinical features of non-severe COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: This study included 92 patients: 41 non-COVID-19 and 51 COVID-19 patients, comprising 45 non-severe and six severe cases. The most common symptoms of COVID-19 were cough (47.1%), fever (31.0%), and dyspnea (25.3%). Cough, fatigue, and anosmia have high accuracy, and combining these complaints in clinical diagnostics offered a higher accuracy in predicting COVID-19 patients (60.1%). We found lower lymphocyte counts and interleukin-1R levels and higher levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and interleukin-8 in severe compared than in non-severe COVID-19 patients. Lactate dehydrogenase was associated with intensive care unit admission and ventilator use, while other markers such as neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6 were not. CONCLUSION: A battery of symptoms, including cough, fatigue, and anosmia, is likely associated with COVID-19 in Bali. Clinicians should be aware of these symptoms to ensure a prompt diagnostic test for COVID-19, beyond other causes of acute febrile illnesses.

Clinical frailty scale and mortality in COVID-19: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) endorsed clinical frailty scale (CFS) to help with decision-making. However, this recommendation lacks an evidence basis and is controversial. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the dose-response relationship between CFS and mortality in COVID-19 patients, with a goal of supplementing the evidence of its use. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search from several electronic databases up until 8 September 2020. We searched for studies investigating COVID-19 patients and reported both (1) CFS and its distribution (2) CFS and its association with mortality. The outcome of interest was mortality, defined as clinically validated death or non-survivor. The odds ratio (ORs) will be reported per 1% increase in CFS. The potential for a non-linear relationship based on ORs of each quantitative CFS was examined using restricted cubic splines with a three-knots model. RESULTS: There were a total of 3817 patients from seven studies. Mean age was 80.3 (SD 8.2), and 53% (48-58%) were males. The pooled prevalence for CFS 1-3 was 34% (32-36%), CFS 4-6 was 42% (40-45%), and CFS 7-9 was 23% (21-25%). Each 1-point increase in CFS was associated with 12% increase in mortality (OR 1.12 (1.04, 1.20), p = 0.003; I2: 77.3%). The dose-response relationship was linear (Pnon-linearity=0.116). The funnel-plot analysis was asymmetrical; Trim-and-fill analysis by the imputation of two studies on the left side resulted in OR of 1.10 [1.03, 1.19]. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that increase in CFS was associated with increase in mortality in a linear fashion.

The Effect of Metformin Consumption on Mortality in Hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Diabetes is one of the most common comorbidities, and it is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Preliminary findings showed that mortality was reduced in those who consume metformin compared to those who did not, and given its low cost and widespread availability; metformin is an attractive and potential agent to mitigate excessive risk in diabetic populations. METHODS: Several medical databases (Pubmed, EuropePMC, EBSCOhost, Proquest, Cochrane library) and two health-science preprint servers (preprint.org and Medrxiv) were systematically searched for relevant literature. RESULTS: Nine studies with 10,233 subjects were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that metformin is associated with lower mortality in pooled non-adjusted model (OR 0.45 [0.25, 0.81], p = 0.008; I2: 63.9%, p = 0.026) and pooled adjusted model (OR 0.64 [0.43, 0.97], p = 0.035; I2: 52.1%, p = 0.064). CONCLUSION: The analysis showed that metformin consumption was associated with lower mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Charlson comorbidity index and a composite of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately affecting patients with comorbidities. Therefore, thorough comorbidities assessment can help establish risk stratification of patients with COVID-19, upon hospital admission. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) is a validated, simple, and readily applicable method of estimating the risk of death from comorbid disease and has been widely used as a predictor of long-term prognosis and survival. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of CCI score and a composite of poor outcomes through several databases. RESULTS: Compared to a CCI score of 0, a CCI score of 1-2 and CCI score of ≥3 was prognostically associated with mortality and associated with a composite of poor outcomes. Per point increase of CCI score also increased mortality risk by 16%. Moreover, a higher mean CCI score also significantly associated with mortality and disease severity. CONCLUSION: CCI score should be utilized for risk stratifications of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

AFES A.S.-O.N.E.: ASEAN Survey Of Needs in Endocrinology in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has made a major impact on hospital services globally, including the care of persons with diabetes and endocrine disorders. The aim of this study is to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies (AFES) member countries; to describe challenges, changes and opportunities in caring for patients with endocrine diseases, as well as in fellowship training programs, and endocrinerelated research in the AFES countries. METHODOLOGY: The AFES ASEAN Survey Of Needs in Endocrinology (AFES A.S.-O.N.E.) was an open-ended questionnaire that was sent to the presidents and representatives of the AFES member countries by email. Responses from Societies were collated and synthesized to obtain perspectives on the emergent issues in endocrinology in the Southeast Asian region during this pandemic. RESULTS: The burden of COVID-19 cases varied widely across the AFES member countries, with the least number of cases in Vietnam and Myanmar, and the greatest number of cases in either the most populous countries (Indonesia and the Philippines), or a country with the highest capability for testing (Singapore). The case fatality rate was also the highest for Indonesia and the Philippines at around 6%, and lowest for Vietnam at no fatalities. The percentage with diabetes among patients with COVID-19 ranged from 5% in Indonesia to 20% in Singapore, approximating the reported percentages in China and the United States. The major challenges in managing patients with endocrine diseases involved inaccessibility of health care providers, clinics and hospitals due to the implementation of lockdowns, community quarantines or movement control among the member countries. This led to disruptions in the continuity of care, testing and monitoring, and for some, provision of both preventive care and active management including surgery for thyroid cancer or pituitary and adrenal tumors, and radioactive iodine therapy. Major disruptions in the endocrine fellowship training programs were also noted across the region, so that some countries have had to freeze hiring of new trainees or to revise both program requirements and approaches to training due to the closure of outpatient endocrine clinics. The same observations are seen for endocrine-related researches, as most research papers have focused on the pandemic. Finally, the report ends by describing innovative approaches to fill in the gap in training and in improving patient access to endocrine services by Telemedicine. CONCLUSION: The burden of COVID-19 cases and its case fatality rate varies across the AFES member countries but its impact is almost uniform: it has disrupted the provision of care for patients with endocrine diseases, and has also disrupted endocrine fellowship training and endocrine-related research across the region. Telemedicine and innovations in training have been operationalized across the AFES countries in an attempt to cope with the disruptions from COVID-19, but its over-all impact on the practice of endocrinology across the region will only become apparent once we conquer this pandemic.