Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 40
Filter
2.
BMC Gastroenterol ; 22(1): 433, 2022 Oct 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064737

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Liver diseases post-COVID-19 vaccination is extremely rare but can occur. A growing body of evidence has indicated that portal vein thrombosis, autoimmune hepatitis, raised liver enzymes and liver injuries, etc., may be potential consequence of COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of a systematic review for new-onset and relapsed liver disease following COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses PRISMA guideline for studies on the incidence of new onset or relapsed liver diseases post-COVID-19 vaccination, published from December 1, 2020 to July 31, 2022, with English language restriction. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five cases from one hundred and eighteen articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review. Autoimmune hepatitis (138 cases) was the most frequent pathology observed post-COVID-19 vaccination, followed by portal vein thrombosis (52 cases), raised liver enzymes (26 cases) and liver injury (21 cases). Other cases include splanchnic vein thrombosis, acute cellular rejection of the liver, jaundice, hepatomegaly, acute hepatic failure and hepatic porphyria. Mortality was reported in any of the included cases for acute hepatic failure (n = 4, 50%), portal vein thrombosis (n = 25, 48.1%), splanchnic vein thrombosis (n = 6, 42.8%), jaundice (n = 1, 12.5%), raised liver enzymes (n = 2, 7.7%), and autoimmune hepatitis (n = 3, 2.2%). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term hepatic therapy. CONCLUSION: Reported evidence of liver diseases post-COIVD-19 vaccination should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively very small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred and the protective benefits offered by COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Hepatitis, Autoimmune , Liver Failure, Acute , Venous Thrombosis , Humans , Chronic Disease , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Hepatitis, Autoimmune/complications , Hepatitis, Autoimmune/etiology , Liver Failure, Acute/complications , Vaccination/adverse effects , Venous Thrombosis/complications , Venous Thrombosis/etiology
3.
Infect Agent Cancer ; 17(1): 49, 2022 Sep 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021315

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are more likely to develop severe course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and experience increased risk of mortality compared to SARS-CoV-2 patients without CRC. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients and analyse the demographic parameters, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in CRC patients with COVID-19 illness. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature for studies on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with English language restriction. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sub-group analyses were performed to minimize heterogeneity. Binary logistic regression model was used to explore the effect of various demographic and clinical characteristics on patient's final treatment outcome (survival or death). RESULTS: Of the 472 papers that were identified, 69 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (41 cohort, 16 case-report, 9 case-series, 2 cross-sectional, and 1 case-control studies). Studies involving 3362 CRC patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (all patients were adults) were analyzed. The overall pooled proportions of CRC patients who had laboratory-confirmed community-acquired and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections were 8.1% (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1, n = 1308, 24 studies, I2 98%, p = 0.66), and 1.5% (95% CI 1.1 to 1.9, n = 472, 27 studies, I2 94%, p < 0.01). The median patient age ranged from 51.6 years to 80 years across studies. The majority of the patients were male (n = 2243, 66.7%) and belonged to White (Caucasian) (n = 262, 7.8%), Hispanic (n = 156, 4.6%) and Asian (n = 153, 4.4%) ethnicity. The main source of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients was community-acquired (n = 2882, 85.7%; p = 0.014). Most of those SARS-CoV-2 patients had stage III CRC (n = 725, 21.6%; p = 0.036) and were treated mainly with surgical resections (n = 304, 9%) and chemotherapies (n = 187, 5.6%), p = 0.008. The odd ratios of death were significantly high in patients with old age (≥ 60 years) (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.96; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.41-0.47; p < 0.001) CRC stage III (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.02-1.05; p = 0.041), CRC stage IV (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.17-1.2; p = 0.009), recent active treatment with chemotherapies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.5-0.66; p = 0.023) or surgical resections (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-0.73; p = 0.016) and admission to ICU (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.85-1.12; p < 0.001) compared to those who survived. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patient is not uncommon and results in a mortality rate of 26.2%. Key determinants that lead to increased mortality in CRC patients infected with COVID-19 include older age (≥ 60 years old); male gender; Asian and Hispanic ethnicity; if SARS-CoV-2 was acquired from hospital source; advanced CRC (stage III and IV); if patient received chemotherapies or surgical treatment; and if patient was admitted to ICU, ventilated or experienced ARDS.

4.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(8)2022 Aug 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1979455

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male (n = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) (n = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic (n = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 31), Moderna (n = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca (n = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac (n = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2-17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5-21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success (n = 70, 85.4%), graft failure (n = 12, 14.6%), survived (n = 90, 95.7%) and died (n = 4, 4.3%)]. CONCLUSION: The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.

5.
COVID ; 2(8):1102-1115, 2022.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-1969119

ABSTRACT

Background: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is caused by non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema and occurs in critically ill patients. It is one of the fatal complications observed among severe COVID-19 cases managed in intensive care units (ICU). Supportive lung-protective ventilation and prone positioning remain the mainstay interventions. Purpose: We describe the severity of ARDS, clinical outcomes, and management of ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in multiple Saudi hospitals. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted of critically ill patients who were admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 and developed ARDS. Results: During our study, 1154 patients experienced ARDS: 591 (51.2%) with severe, 415 (36.0%) with moderate, and 148 (12.8%) with mild ARDS. The mean sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was significantly higher in severe ARDS with COVID-19 (6 ±5, p = 0.006). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed COVID-19 patients with mild ARDS had a significantly higher survival rate compared to COVID-19 patients who experienced severe ARDS (p = 0.023). Conclusion: ARDS is a challenging condition complicating COVID-19 infection. It carries significant morbidity and results in elevated mortality. ARDS requires protective mechanical ventilation and other critical care supportive measures. The severity of ARDS is associated significantly with the rate of death among the patients.

6.
Pathogens ; 11(7)2022 Jun 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1964047

ABSTRACT

In October 2021, a case of acute hepatic failure without any known cause was identified in the United States of America. Upon further investigation, other children aged 1-6 years were reported to have the same liver failure, and some of them were positive for adenovirus 41 type F. On 21 April 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released an alert after 74 cases were identified in United Kingdom (UK) between 5 and 8 April in children below 10 years of age, some of whom were also found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2. All the patients showed symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, and abdominal pain. The patients' liver enzymes were remarkably increased. A total of 650 cases had been reported from 33 countries as of 27 May 2022, among which 222 cases were reported in the UK alone. No connection with SARS-CoV-2 or its vaccine has been found so far. However, the suspected cause is adenovirus, including its genomic variations, because its pathogenesis and laboratory investigations have been positively linked. Until further evidence emerges, hygiene precautions could be helpful to prevent its spread.

7.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(7)2022 Jul 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917875

ABSTRACT

Given the increasing anti-vaccine movements erroneously touting vaccine danger, this review has investigated the rare adverse events potentially associated with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), an mRNA vaccine against the severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Only real-world surveillance studies with at least 0.1 million BNT162b2-vaccinated participants and one unvaccinated control group were selected for review. A total of 21 studies examining the potential association of BNT162b2 with cardiovascular, herpetic, thrombotic or thrombocytopenic, neurological, mortality, and other miscellaneous rare adverse events were described in this review. Only myocarditis is consistently associated with BNT162b2. An unclear direction of association was seen with stroke (hemorrhagic and ischemic), herpes zoster, and paresthesia from BNT162b2, which may require more studies to resolve. Fortunately, most surveillance studies detected no increased risks of the remaining rare adverse events reviewed herein, further reassuring the safety of BNT162b2. In conclusion, this review has concisely summarized the current rare adverse events related and unrelated to BNT162b2, arguably for the first time in sufficient depth, to better communicate vaccine safety to the public.

8.
Molecules ; 27(13)2022 Jul 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917639

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which caused the COVID-19 infection, was discovered two and a half years ago. It caused a global pandemic, resulting in millions of deaths and substantial damage to the worldwide economy. Currently, only a few vaccines and antiviral drugs are available to combat SARS-CoV-2. However, there has been an increase in virus-related research, including exploring new drugs and their repurposing. Since discovering penicillin, natural products, particularly those derived from microbes, have been viewed as an abundant source of lead compounds for drug discovery. These compounds treat bacterial, fungal, parasitic, and viral infections. This review incorporates evidence from the available research publications on isolated and identified natural products derived from microbes with anti-hepatitis, anti-herpes simplex, anti-HIV, anti-influenza, anti-respiratory syncytial virus, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 properties. About 131 compounds with in vitro antiviral activity and 1 compound with both in vitro and in vivo activity have been isolated from microorganisms, and the mechanism of action for some of these compounds has been described. Recent reports have shown that natural products produced by the microbes, such as aurasperone A, neochinulin A and B, and aspulvinone D, M, and R, have potent in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity, targeting the main protease (Mpro). In the near and distant future, these molecules could be used to develop antiviral drugs for treating infections and preventing the spread of disease.


Subject(s)
Biological Products , COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Biological Products/pharmacology , Biological Products/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 58(7)2022 Jul 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917622

ABSTRACT

Background and Objective: Bacterial infections are among the major complications of many viral respiratory tract illnesses, such as influenza and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). These bacterial co-infections are associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality rates. The current observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan among COVID-19 patients with the status of oxygen dependency to see the prevalence of bacterial co-infections and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns. Materials and Methods: A total of 1251 clinical samples were collected from already diagnosed COVID-19 patients and tested for bacterial identification (cultures) and susceptibility testing (disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration) using gold standard diagnostic methods. Results: From the total collected samples, 234 were found positive for different bacterial isolates. The most common isolated bacteria were Escherichia coli (E. coli) (n = 62) and Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii) (n = 47). The E. coli isolates have shown the highest resistance to amoxicillin and ampicillin, while in the case of A. baumannii, the highest resistance was noted against tetracycline. The prevalence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was 14.9%, carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) was 4.5%, and vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE) was 3.96%. Conclusions: The results of the current study conclude that empiric antimicrobial treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients may be considered if properly managed within institutional or national level antibiotic stewardship programs, because it may play a protective role in the case of bacterial co-infections, especially when a patient has other AMR risk factors, such as hospital admission within the previous six months.


Subject(s)
Acinetobacter baumannii , COVID-19 , Coinfection , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Coinfection/drug therapy , Coinfection/epidemiology , Drug Resistance, Microbial , Escherichia coli , Humans , Pakistan/epidemiology
10.
Infection ; 50(3): 583-596, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1872771

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines have been developed to compact the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and have been administered to people all over the world. These vaccines have been quite effective in reducing the possibility of severe illness, hospitalization and death. However, the recent emergence of Variants of Concern specifically the delta variant, B.1.617.2, had resulted in additional waves of the pandemic. METHODS: We aim to review the literature to understand the transmission and disease severity, and determine the efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase till August 4th 2021, and used the search terms "delta variant", "vaccinations"," breakthrough infections", and "neutralizing antibody". For the meta-analysis, 21 studies were screened in particular and five articles (148,071 cases) were included in the study, and only four were analyzed in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: In this review, both in vitro and in vivo studies showed significant reductions in neutralization rates against delta variants for vaccinated individuals and convalescent patients with prior history of COVID-19. However, There was a lower incidence of infection with SARS-CoV-2 due to Delta variant was found after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines. CONCLUSION: In fully vaccinated individuals, symptomatic infection with the delta variant was significantly reduced, and therefore, vaccinations play an important role to assist the fight against delta variant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccine Efficacy
11.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-332771

ABSTRACT

Background: Although vaccination is underway, antiviral drugs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. Remdesivir, a nucleoside analog that works by inhibiting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), is the only fully approved antiviral for the treatment of COVID-19. However, it is limited to intravenous use and is usually recommended only for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19;therefore, oral drugs that can be prescribed even to non-hospitalized patients are required. According to a recent study, 4′-fluoruridine, a nucleoside analog similar to remdesivir, is a promising candidate for COVID-19 oral therapy due to its ability to stall viral RdRp. Methods: : We examined the antiviral activity of 4′-fluorouridine and compared it to other drugs currently in development. The current literature on 4′-fluorouridine's antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been compiled and discussed in this review. Results: : The 4'-fluorouridine has antiviral activity against the respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis C virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and other RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. In vitro studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is susceptible to 4'-fluorouridine, with the half-maximal effective concentration (EC 50 ) of 0.2 to 0.6 M, and that the 4′-fluorouridine derivative, 4′-fluorouridine-5′-triphosphate, inhibited RdRp via a mechanism distinct from that of the already approved COVID-19 oral drug, molnupiravir. In addition, an in vivo study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is highly susceptible to 4'-fluorouridine and was effective with a single daily dose versus molnupiravir administered twice daily. Conclusions: : Concerns about the genetic effects of molnupiravir may be resolved by the use of 4′-fluorouridine and its derivative, which, unlike molnupiravir, do not alter genetics, but inhibit RdRp instead. Although they are currently considered as strong candidates, further studies are required to determine the antiviral activity of 4′-fluorouridine and its derivative against SARS-CoV-2 and their genetic effects on humans.

12.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(5): 2045853, 2022 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730554

ABSTRACT

Multiple vaccines have recently been developed, and almost all the countries are presently vaccinating their population to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the COVID-19 vaccines in use are administered via intramuscular (IM) injection, eliciting protective humor and cellular immunity. COVID-19 intranasal (IN) vaccines are also being developed that have shown promising ability to induce a significant amount of antibody-mediated immune response and a robust cell-mediated immunity as well as hold the added ability to stimulate protective mucosal immunity along with the additional advantage of the ease of administration as compared to IM injected vaccines. By inducing secretory IgA antibody responses specifically in the nasal compartment, the intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can prevent virus infection, replication, shedding, and disease development, as well as possibly limits virus transmission. This article highlights the current progress, advantages, prospects, and challenges in developing intranasal COVID-19 vaccines for countering the ongoing pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Administration, Intranasal , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 601, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671558

ABSTRACT

Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 spread and evolution through genome sequencing is essential in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we sequenced 892 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected from patients in Saudi Arabia from March to August 2020. We show that two consecutive mutations (R203K/G204R) in the nucleocapsid (N) protein are associated with higher viral loads in COVID-19 patients. Our comparative biochemical analysis reveals that the mutant N protein displays enhanced viral RNA binding and differential interaction with key host proteins. We found increased interaction of GSK3A kinase simultaneously with hyper-phosphorylation of the adjacent serine site (S206) in the mutant N protein. Furthermore, the host cell transcriptome analysis suggests that the mutant N protein produces dysregulated interferon response genes. Here, we provide crucial information in linking the R203K/G204R mutations in the N protein to modulations of host-virus interactions and underline the potential of the nucleocapsid protein as a drug target during infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Genome, Viral , Mutation, Missense , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/enzymology , COVID-19/genetics , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/metabolism , Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3/genetics , Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3/metabolism , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Nucleocapsid/genetics , Nucleocapsid/metabolism , Phosphorylation , Phylogeny , Protein Binding , SARS-CoV-2/classification , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Saudi Arabia , Viral Load , Virus Replication
14.
Diabetol Metab Syndr ; 13(1): 120, 2021 Oct 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1629643

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: One possible reason for increased mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes is from the complication of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the association of SARS-CoV-2 and development of DKA and analyse the demographic and biochemical parameters and the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with DKA. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed. METHODS: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2019 to 30 June 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 AND diabetic ketoacidosis OR DKA OR ketosis OR ketonemia OR hyperglycaemic emergency OR hyperglycaemic crisis. We included studies in adults and children of all ages in all healthcare settings. Binary logistic regression model was used to explore the effect of various demographic and biochemical parameters variables on patient's final treatment outcome (survival or death). RESULTS: Of the 484 papers that were identified, 68 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (54 case report, 10 case series, and 4 cohort studies). Studies involving 639 DKA patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 [46 (7.2%) were children and 334 (52.3%) were adults] were analyzed. The median or mean patient age ranged from < 1 years to 66 years across studies. Most of the patients (n = 309, 48.3%) had pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The majority of the patients were male (n = 373, 58.4%) and belonged to Hispanic (n = 156, 24.4%) and black (n = 98, 15.3%) ethnicity. The median random blood glucose level, HbA1c, pH, bicarbonate, and anion gap in all included patients at presentation were 507 mg/dl [IQR 399-638 mg/dl], 11.4% [IQR 9.9-13.5%], 7.16 [IQR 7.00-7.22], 10 mmol/l [IQR 6.9-13 mmol/l], and 24.5 mEq/l [18-29.2 mEq/l]; respectively. Mortality rate was [63/243, 25.9%], with a majority of death in patients of Hispanic ethnicity (n = 17, 27%; p = 0.001). The odd ratios of death were significantly high in patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2 [OR 5.24, 95% CI 2.07-15.19; p = 0.001], old age (≥ 60 years) [OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.38-7.91; p = 0.007], and male gender [OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.37-5.17; p = 0.004] compared to those who survived. CONCLUSION: DKA is not uncommon in SARS-CoV-2 patients with diabetes mellitus and results in a mortality rate of 25.9%. Mortality key determinants in DKA patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are individuals with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2, older age [≥ 60 years old], male gender, BMI ≥ 30, blood glucose level > 1000 mg/dl, and anion gap ≥ 30 mEq/l.

15.
Immun Inflamm Dis ; 10(3): e587, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1625924

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab was studied to reduce cytokine syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with conflicting results. We aim to study the early use of tocilizumab in SOT with COVID-19 pneumonia on low flow oxygen. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that was conducted in two transplant centers in Saudi Arabia among 46 SOT with COVID-19 comparing 21 patients who received tocilizumab to 25 patients who received standard of care. Their clinical characteristics and outcomes were described. RESULTS: Compared to patients who received standard of care, patients in the tocilizumab group were older (60.2 ± 12.8 vs. 48.6 ± 12.3, p = .003), had higher ferritin (862.1 ± 919.1 vs. 414 ± 447.3, p = .025) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (85 ± 83.1 vs. 42.9 ± 57.3, p = .012). More patients in the tocilizumab group required high flow oxygen (38.1% vs. 8.0%, p = .028) compared to patients on standard of care. There were no differences in mortality or mechanical ventilation requirement. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the tocilizumab group than the standard of care group (9.6 ± 7.4 vs. 20.7 ± 11.7, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early use of tocilizumab in SOT was associated with a shorter hospital stay. There was no difference in mortality rate and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in both groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Organ Transplantation , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
16.
Nurs Rep ; 10(1): 23-32, 2020 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591005

ABSTRACT

Background: There is a vital need to develop strategies to improve nursing surge capacity for caring of patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) in critical care settings. COVID-19 has spread rapidly, affecting thousands of patients and hundreds of territories. Hospitals, through anticipation and planning, can serve patients and staff by developing strategies to cope with the complications that a surge of COVID-19 places on the provision of adequate intensive care unit (ICU) nursing staff-both in numbers and in training. Aims: The aim is to provide an evidence-based starting point from which to build expanding staffing models dealing with these additional demands. Design/Method: In order to address and develop nursing surge capacity strategies, a five-member expert panel was formed. Multiple questions directed towards nursing surge capacity strategies were posed by the assembled expert panel. Literature review was conducted through accessing various databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE. All studies were appraised by at least two reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: The expert panel has issued strategies and recommendation statements. These proposals, supported by evidence-based resources in regard to nursing staff augmentation strategies, have had prior success when implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: The proposed guidelines are intended to provide a basis for the provision of best practice nursing care during times of diminished intensive care unit (ICU) nursing staff capacity and resources due to a surge in critically ill patients. The recommendations and strategies issued are intended to specifically support critical care nurses incorporating COVID-19 patients. As new knowledge evidence becomes available, updates can be issued and strategies, guidelines and/or policies revised. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Through discussion and condensing research, healthcare professionals can create a starting point from which to synergistically develop strategies to combat crises that a pandemic like COVID-19 produces.

17.
Infez Med ; 29(4): 495-503, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1579089

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To date, only corticosteroids and interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In this literature review, we aimed to summarize infection risk of IL inhibitors, with or without the use of corticosteroids, used to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following evidence-based medicine reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Embase; Ovid Medline; and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions 1946 to April 28, 2021. All relevant articles were identified using the search terms COVID-19 or SARS-coronavirus-2, infections, interleukins, inpatients, adults, and i ncidence. RESULTS: We identified 36 studies of which 2 were meta-analyses, 5 were randomized controlled trials, 9 were prospective studies, and 20 were retrospective studies. When anakinra was compared with control, 2 studies reported an increased risk of infection, and 3 studies reported a similar or decreased incidence of infection. Canakinumab had a lower associated incidence of infection compared with placebo in one study. When sarilumab was compared with placebo, one study reported an increased risk of infection. Nine studies comparing tocilizumab with placebo reported decreased or no difference in infection risk (odds ratio [OR] for the studies ranged from 0.39-1.21). Fourteen studies comparing tocilizumab with placebo reported an increased risk of infection, ranging from 9.1% to 63.0% (OR for the studies ranged from 1.85-5.04). Infection most commonly presented as bacteremia. Of the 6 studies comparing tocilizumab and corticosteroid use with placebo, 4 reported a nonsignificant increase toward corticosteroids being associated with bacterial infections (OR ranged from 2.76-3.8), and 2 studies reported no increased association with a higher infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature review showed mixed results with variable significance for the association of IL-6 inhibitors with risk of infections in patients with COVID-19.

18.
Eur J Med Res ; 26(1): 141, 2021 Dec 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566531

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a rescue strategy in patients with severe with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there has been little evidence of its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of ECMO rescue therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A case series study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients who were admitted to the ICUs of 22 Saudi hospitals, between March 1, 2020, and October 30, 2020, by reviewing patient's medical records prospectively. RESULTS: ECMO use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (40.2% vs. 48.9%; p = 0.000); lower COVID-19 virological cure (41.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.000); and longer hospitalization (20.2 days vs 29.1 days; p = 0.000), ICU stay (12.6 vs 26 days; p = 0.000) and mechanical ventilation use (14.2 days vs 22.4 days; p = 0.000) compared to non-ECMO group. Also, there was a high number of patients with septic shock (19.6%) and multiple organ failure (10.9%); and more complications occurred at any time during hospitalization [pneumothorax (5% vs 29.3%, p = 0.000), bleeding requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 38%, p = 0.000), pulmonary embolism (6.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3.3% vs 8.7%, p = 0.017)] in the ECMO group. However, PaO2 was significantly higher in the 72-h post-ECMO initiation group and PCO2 was significantly lower in the 72-h post-ECMO start group than those in the 12-h pre-ECMO group (62.9 vs. 70 mmHg, p = 0.002 and 61.8 vs. 51 mmHg, p = 0.042, respectively). CONCLUSION: Following the use of ECMO, the mortality rate of patients and length of ICU and hospital stay were not improved. However, these findings need to be carefully interpreted, as most of our cohort patients were relatively old and had multiple severe comorbidities. Future randomized trials, although challenging to conduct, are highly needed to confirm or dispute reported observations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Temperature , Young Adult
19.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol ; 17(1): 109, 2021 Oct 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1468077

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. METHODS: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p = < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p = < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

20.
Infez Med ; 29(3): 339-344, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1469049

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pandemic affected the lives of many with its devastating mortality and morbidity. Acquisition of herd immunity is one way to mitigate the spread of infection. Many factors influence the acceptance of vaccination including the regulatory process of the vaccines. This review article will briefly summarize the Emergency Use Authorization, Full FDA Approval process and highlight how the key factors affecting the vaccination hesitancy, are being influenced by the lack of Full FDA Approval.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL