Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Int J Infect Dis ; 119: 130-139, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1889472

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To meta-analyse the clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after adenoviral vector vaccination. METHODS: Eighteen studies of VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Ad26.COV2.S vaccine administration were reviewed from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. The meta-analysis estimated the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding the incidence, manifestations, sites of thrombosis, diagnostic findings, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The incidence of total venous thrombosis after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination was 28 (95% CI 12-52, I2=100%) per 100,000 doses administered. Of 664 patients included in the quantitative analysis (10 studies), the mean age of patients with VITT was 45.6 years (95% CI 43.8-47.4, I2=57%), with a female predominance (70%). Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary thromboembolism (PE), and splanchnic vein thrombosis occurred in 54%, 36%, and 19% of patients with VITT, respectively. The pooled incidence rate of CVT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (23 per 100,000 person-years) was higher than that reported in the pre-pandemic general population (0.9 per 100,000 person-years). Intracranial haemorrhage and extracranial thrombosis accompanied 47% and 33% of all patients with CVT, respectively. The antiplatelet factor 4 antibody positivity rate was 91% (95% CI 88-94, I2=0%) and the overall mortality was 32% (95% CI 24-41, I2=69%), and no significant difference was observed between heparin- and non-heparin-based anticoagulation treatments (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.50, I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with VITT after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination most frequently presented with CVT following DVT/PE and splanchnic vein thrombosis, and about one-third of patients had a fatal outcome. This meta-analysis should provide a better understanding of VITT and assist clinicians in identifying VITT early to improve outcomes and optimise management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Vaccines , Venous Thrombosis , Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic/epidemiology , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombocytopenia/etiology , Thrombosis/epidemiology , Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/chemically induced , Venous Thrombosis/etiology
2.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 8: 779073, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1809356

ABSTRACT

Background: The fatal consequences of an infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not only caused by severe pneumonia, but also by thrombosis. Platelets are important regulators of thrombosis, but their involvement in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine their functional and biochemical profile in patients with COVID-19 in dependence of mortality within 5-days after hospitalization. Methods: The COVID-19-related platelet phenotype was examined by analyzing their basal activation state via integrin αIIbß3 activation using flow cytometry and the proteome by unbiased two-dimensional differential in-gel fluorescence electrophoresis. In total we monitored 98 surviving and 12 non-surviving COVID-19 patients over 5 days of hospital stay and compared them to healthy controls (n = 12). Results: Over the observation period the level of basal αIIbß3 activation on platelets from non-surviving COVID-19 patients decreased compared to survivors. In line with this finding, proteomic analysis revealed a decrease in the total amount of integrin αIIb (ITGA2B), a subunit of αIIbß3, in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls; the decline was even more pronounced for the non-survivors. Consumption of the fibrin-stabilizing factor coagulation factor XIIIA (F13A1) was higher in platelets from COVID-19 patients and tended to be higher in non-survivors; plasma concentrations of the latter also differed significantly. Depending on COVID-19 disease status and mortality, increased amounts of annexin A5 (ANXA5), eukaryotic initiation factor 4A-I (EIF4A1), and transaldolase (TALDO1) were found in the platelet proteome and also correlated with the nasopharyngeal viral load. Dysregulation of these proteins may play a role for virus replication. ANXA5 has also been identified as an autoantigen of the antiphospholipid syndrome, which is common in COVID-19 patients. Finally, the levels of two different protein disulfide isomerases, P4HB and PDIA6, which support thrombosis, were increased in the platelets of COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Platelets from COVID-19 patients showed significant changes in the activation phenotype, in the processing of the final coagulation factor F13A1 and the phospholipid-binding protein ANXA5 compared to healthy subjects. Additionally, these results demonstrate specific alterations in platelets during COVID-19, which are significantly linked to fatal outcome.

3.
J Med Virol ; 94(6): 2402-2413, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1718416

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to provide a more accurate representation of COVID-19's case fatality rate (CFR) by performing meta-analyses by continents and income, and by comparing the result with pooled estimates. We used multiple worldwide data sources on COVID-19 for every country reporting COVID-19 cases. On the basis of data, we performed random and fixed meta-analyses for CFR of COVID-19 by continents and income according to each individual calendar date. CFR was estimated based on the different geographical regions and levels of income using three models: pooled estimates, fixed- and random-model. In Asia, all three types of CFR initially remained approximately between 2.0% and 3.0%. In the case of pooled estimates and the fixed model results, CFR increased to 4.0%, by then gradually decreasing, while in the case of random-model, CFR remained under 2.0%. Similarly, in Europe, initially, the two types of CFR peaked at 9.0% and 10.0%, respectively. The random-model results showed an increase near 5.0%. In high-income countries, pooled estimates and fixed-model showed gradually increasing trends with a final pooled estimates and random-model reached about 8.0% and 4.0%, respectively. In middle-income, the pooled estimates and fixed-model have gradually increased reaching up to 4.5%. in low-income countries, CFRs remained similar between 1.5% and 3.0%. Our study emphasizes that COVID-19 CFR is not a fixed or static value. Rather, it is a dynamic estimate that changes with time, population, socioeconomic factors, and the mitigatory efforts of individual countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Asia , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors
4.
Genus ; 77(1): 7, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1190115

ABSTRACT

As of 31 January 2021, 63.9 million cases and 1.4 million deaths had been reported in Europe and North America, which accounted for 62.5% and 62.4% of the global total, respectively. Comparing the level of mortality across countries has proven difficult because of inherent limitations in the most commonly cited measures (e.g., case-fatality rates). We collected the cumulative number of confirmed deaths from COVID-19 by age in 2020 from the L'Institut National d'études Démographiques (INED) database and Statistics Canada for 15 European and North American countries. We calculated age-specific death rates and age-standardized death rates (ASDR) for each country over a 1-year period from 6 February 2020 (date of first COVID-19 death in Europe and North America) to 5 February 2021 using established demographic methods. We estimated that COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death behind cancer in England and Wales and France and the third leading cause of death behind cancer and heart disease in nine countries including the US. Countries with higher all-cause mortality prior to the COVID-19 experienced higher COVID-19 mortality than countries with lower all-cause mortality prior to the pandemic. The COVID-19 ASDR varied substantially within country (e.g., a 5-fold difference among the highest and lowest mortality states in Germany). Consistently strong public health measures may have lessened the level of mortality for some European and North American countries. In contrast, many of the largest countries and economies in these regions may continue to experience a high mortality level because of poor implementation and adherence to such measures. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41118-021-00115-9.

5.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(12): e22103, 2020 12 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967271

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: South Korea is one of the few countries that has succeeded in flattening the curve of new COVID-19 cases and avoiding a second outbreak by implementing multiple strategies, ranging from an individual level to the population level. OBJECTIVE: We aim to discuss the unique strategies and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in South Korea and present a summary of policies implemented by the Korean government during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study of epidemiological data published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on October 1, 2020. We analyzed detailed epidemiological information of COVID-19 cases, including the number of confirmed cases and resulting deaths. RESULTS: As of October 1, 2020, a total of 23,889 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 415 deaths were reported in South Korea. In this paper, we present data on the epidemiological characteristics and transmission of the disease and discuss how the South Korean government, health care providers, and society responded to the COVID-19 outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in South Korea and the government's successful efforts in managing the spread of the disease can provide important insights to other countries dealing with the ongoing pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Epidemiologic Methods , Humans , Republic of Korea/epidemiology
6.
Theranostics ; 11(3): 1207-1231, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-966958

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-ß1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Animals , COVID-19/mortality , Carbamates/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Disease Models, Animal , Drug Combinations , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Imidazoles/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive/methods , Pyrrolidines/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/mortality , Sofosbuvir/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Valine/analogs & derivatives , Valine/therapeutic use
7.
Int J Infect Dis ; 100: 302-308, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-959814

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December of 2019 in China, estimating the pandemic's case fatality rate (CFR) has been the focus and interest of many stakeholders. In this manuscript, we prove that the method of using the cumulative CFR is static and does not reflect the trend according to the daily change per unit of time. METHODS: A proportion meta-analysis was carried out on the CFR in every country reporting COVID-19 cases. Based on these results, we performed a meta-analysis for a global COVID-19 CFR. Each analysis was performed using two different calculations of CFR: according to the calendar date and according to the days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case. We thus explored an innovative and original calculation of CFR, concurrently based on the date of the first confirmed case as well as on a daily basis. RESULTS: For the first time, we showed that using meta-analyses according to the calendar date and days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case, were different. CONCLUSION: We propose that a CFR according to days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case might be a better predictor of the current CFR of COVID-19 and its kinetics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Global Health , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Theranostics ; 11(1): 316-329, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922935

ABSTRACT

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by systemic hyper-inflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiple organ failure. Cytokine storm refers to a set of clinical conditions caused by excessive immune reactions and has been recognized as a leading cause of severe COVID-19. While comparisons have been made between COVID-19 cytokine storm and other kinds of cytokine storm such as hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and cytokine release syndrome, the pathogenesis of cytokine storm has not been clearly elucidated yet. Recent studies have shown that impaired response of type-1 IFNs in early stage of COVID-19 infection played a major role in the development of cytokine storm, and various cytokines such as IL-6 and IL-1 were involved in severe COVID-19. Furthermore, many clinical evidences have indicated the importance of anti-inflammatory therapy in severe COVID-19. Several approaches are currently being used to treat the observed cytokine storm associated with COVID-19, and expectations are especially high for new cytokine-targeted therapies, such as tocilizumab, anakinra, and baricitinib. Although a number of studies have been conducted on anti-inflammatory treatments for severe COVID-19, no specific recommendations have been made on which drugs should be used for which patients and when. In this review, we provide an overview of cytokine storm in COVID-19 and treatments currently being used to address it. In addition, we discuss the potential therapeutic role of extracorporeal cytokine removal to treat the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Cytokines/metabolism , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Azetidines/pharmacology , Azetidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokines/antagonists & inhibitors , Cytokines/immunology , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/pharmacology , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/pharmacology , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Janus Kinases/antagonists & inhibitors , Janus Kinases/metabolism , Purines/pharmacology , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/pharmacology , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , STAT Transcription Factors/antagonists & inhibitors , STAT Transcription Factors/metabolism , Severity of Illness Index , Signal Transduction/drug effects , Signal Transduction/immunology , Sulfonamides/pharmacology , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
10.
J Clin Med ; 9(8)2020 Jul 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690725

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

11.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 17(14)2020 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-646402

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The global threat of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues. The diversity of clinical characteristics and progress are reported in many countries as the duration of the pandemic is prolonged. We aimed to perform a novel systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on findings about correlations between clinical characteristics and laboratory features of patients with COVID-19. (2) Methods: We analyzed cases of COVID-19 in different countries by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases and Google Scholar, from the early stage of the outbreak to late March. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and treatment strategies were retrospectively reviewed for the analysis. (3) Results: Thirty-seven (n = 5196 participants) COVID-19-related studies were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Fever, cough and fatigue/myalgia were the most common symptoms of COVID-19, followed by some gastrointestinal symptoms which are also reported frequently. Laboratory markers of inflammation and infection including C-reactive protein (CRP) (65% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56-81%)) were elevated, while lymphocyte counts were decreased (63% (95% CI 47-78%)). Meta-analysis of treatment approaches indicated that three modalities of treatment were predominantly used in the majority of patients with a similar prevalence, including antiviral agents (79%), antibiotics (78%), and oxygen therapy (77%). Age was negatively correlated with number of lymphocytes, but positively correlated with dyspnea, number of white blood cells, neutrophils, and D-dimer. Chills had been proved to be positively correlated with chest tightness, lung abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) scans, neutrophil/lymphocyte/platelets count, D-dimer and CRP, cough was positively correlated with sputum production, and pulmonary abnormalities were positively correlated with CRP. White blood cell (WBC) count was also positively correlated with platelet counts, dyspnea, and neutrophil counts with the respective correlations of 0.668, 0.728, and 0.696. (4) Conclusions: This paper is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the relationship between various variables of clinical characteristics, symptoms and laboratory results with the largest number of papers and patients until now. In elderly patients, laboratory and clinical characteristics indicate a more severe disease course. Moreover, treatments such as antiviral agents, antibiotics, and oxygen therapy which are used in over three quarters of patients are also analyzed. The results will provide "evidence-based hope" on how to manage this unanticipated and overwhelming pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Age Factors , Betacoronavirus , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19 , Chills/virology , Cough/virology , Dyspnea/virology , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Inflammation/virology , Leukocyte Count , Lymphocyte Count , Pandemics , Platelet Count , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 56(6)2020 Jun 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-622723

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: Despite medical advances, we are facing the unprecedented disaster of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic without available treatments and effective vaccines. As the COVID-19 pandemic has approached its culmination, desperate efforts have been made to seek proper treatments and response strategies, and the number of clinical trials has been rapidly increasing. In this time of the pandemic, it is believed that learning lessons from it would be meaningful in preparing for future pandemics. Thus, this study aims at providing a comprehensive landscape of COVID-19 related clinical trials based on the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Materials and methods: Up to 30 March 2020, we identified a total of 147 eligible clinical trials and reviewed the overview of the studies. Results: Until then, the most clinical trials were set up in China. Treatment approaches are the most frequent purpose of the registered studies. Chloroquine, interferon, and antiviral agents such as remdesivir, lopinavir, and ritonavir are agents under investigation in these trials. Conclusions: In this study, we introduced the promising therapeutic options that many researchers and clinicians are interested in, and to address the hidden issues behind clinical trials in this COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Databases, Factual , Humans , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL