Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 61
Filter
Add filters

Year range
1.
BMJ ; 373: n1038, 2021 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223582

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: 303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19. RESULTS: Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of covid-19.

2.
Cell Proliferation ; 54(5), 2021.
Article | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-1208537

ABSTRACT

ObjectivesGuillain‐Barré syndrome (GBS) results from autoimmune attack on the peripheral nerves, causing sensory, motor and autonomic abnormalities Emerging evidence suggests that there might be an association between COVID‐19 and GBS Nevertheless, the underlying pathophysiological mechanism remains unclear Materials and MethodsWe performed bioinformatic analyses to delineate the potential genetic crosstalk between COVID‐19 and GBS ResultsCOVID‐19 and GBS were associated with a similar subset of immune/inflammation regulatory genes, including TNF, CSF2, IL2RA, IL1B, IL4, IL6 and IL10 Protein‐protein interaction network analysis revealed that the combined gene set showed an increased connectivity as compared to COVID‐19 or GBS alone, particularly the potentiated interactions with CD86, IL23A, IL27, ISG20, PTGS2, HLA‐DRB1, HLA‐DQB1 and ITGAM, and these genes are related to Th17 cell differentiation Transcriptome analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with COVID‐19 and GBS further demonstrated the activation of interleukin‐17 signalling in both conditions ConclusionsAugmented Th17 cell differentiation and cytokine response was identified in both COVID‐19 and GBS PBMC transcriptome analysis also suggested the pivotal involvement of Th17 signalling pathway In conclusion, our data suggested aberrant Th17 cell differentiation as a possible mechanism by which COVID‐19 can increase the risk of GBS

3.
JMIR Med Inform ; 2021 Feb 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195972

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is straining healthcare systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate between patients requiring hospitalization and those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the "prediction model risk of bias assessment" criteria and has not been externally validated. OBJECTIVE: Externally validate the C-19 index across a range of healthcare settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: We followed the OHDSI framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 model. We evaluated the model on two different target populations: i) 41,381 patients that have SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency room visit and ii) 9,429,285 patients that have influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency room visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0 to 30 days. In total we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. RESULTS: The internal validation performance of the C-19 index was a c-statistic of 0.73 and calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data the model obtained c-statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US and South Korean datasets respectively. The calibration was poor with the model under-estimating risk. When validated on 12 datasets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network the c-statistics ranged between 0.40-0.68. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 model is low for influenza cohorts, and even worse amongst COVID-19 patients in the US, Spain and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

4.
Cancer Lett ; 508: 30-46, 2021 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1155427

ABSTRACT

There are minimal data regarding the prevalence of cancer in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as the incidence of severe illness and rate of mortality in COVID-19 patients with cancer. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched, from database inception to July 15, 2020, for studies of patients with COVID-19 that included information regarding comorbid cancer. In total, 109 eligible global studies were included in this systematic review. Ninety studies with 94,845 COVID-19 patients, among which 4106 exhibited comorbid cancer, were included in the meta-analysis regarding prevalence of comorbid cancer. Twenty-three studies with 71,969 COVID-19 patients, among which 4351 with comorbid cancer had severe illness or death, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients was 0.07 (95% CI 0.05-0.09). The cancer prevalence in COVID-19 patients was higher in Europe (0.22, 95% CI 0.17-0.28) than in the Asia-Pacific region (0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.06) or North America (0.05, 95% CI 0.04-0.06). The cancer prevalence in COVID-19 patients aged >60 years was 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.14), while the prevalence among patients aged ≤60 years was 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06). The pooled prevalence of severe illness among COVID-19 patients with cancer was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.42) and the pooled mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancer was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.25). Pooled incidences of severe illness among COVID-19 patients with cancer from Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America were 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.52), 0.39 (95% CI 0.25-0.53), and 0.26 (95% CI 0.20-0.31), respectively; pooled mortality rates from the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and North America were 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24), 0.26 (95% CI 0.18-0.35), and 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.25), respectively.


Subject(s)
/epidemiology , Neoplasms/epidemiology , /isolation & purification , Asia/epidemiology , /virology , Comorbidity , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/mortality , North America/epidemiology , Prevalence , Survival Rate
5.
Biosci Trends ; 15(2): 129-131, 2021 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154738

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline nurses have faced extraordinary personal and professional challenges. These challenges have had mental health consequences, and concerning reports of burnout have emerged globally. We conducted a cross-sectional survey at a designated COVID-19 hospital in Shanghai at the peak of the pandemic, i.e. about 2 months after the onset of the outbreak from February to April 2020. Findings revealed burnout in 6.85% of nurses. Of 336 respondents, 87 (25.89%) had a high level of emotional exhaustion, 61 (18.15%) had a high level of depersonalization, and 100 (29.76%) had a low level of personal accomplishment. Burnout can be prevented by offering more support from families and supervisors, paying attention to health monitoring and personal protection, and creating a rational human resource allocation and shift management system. Specific training on infection control and self-protection, mental health guidance, and stress coping techniques must be implemented. As the current health crisis ultimately abates, moving the focus from mental health issues to public health issues, more attention and support at the national and organizational levels are needed to reduce occupational discrimination, nurse autonomy and status need to be promoted, and public health emergency teams need to be created. A positive and fair working environment is essential to effective healthcare delivery.

6.
Biosci Trends ; 15(2): 93-99, 2021 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154737

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 epidemic is still ongoing, a more rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection such as viral antigen-detection needs to be evaluated for early diagnosis of COVID-19 disease. Here, we report the dynamic changes of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in nasopharyngeal swabs of COVID-19 patients and its association with the viral nucleic acid clearance and clinical outcomes. Eighty-five COVID-19 patients were enrolled for detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens, including 57 anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative cases and 28 antibody positive cases. The viral antigen could be detected in 52.63% (30/57) patients with SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative at the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in the first 5 days after disease onset (p = 0.0018) and disappeared in about 8 days after disease onset. Viral antigens were highly detectable in patients with low Ct value (less than 30) of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid RT-PCT assay, suggesting the expression of viral antigen was associated with high viral load. Furthermore, positive antigen detection indicated disease progression, nine cases with positive antigen (9/30, 30.0%), in contrast to two cases (2/27, 7.40%) (p = 0.0444) with negative antigen, which progressed into severe disease. Thus, the viral antigens were persistent in early stages of infection when virus was in highly replicating status, and viral antigen detection promises to rapidly screen positive patients in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

7.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 2021 Mar 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135892

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. METHODS: A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalisation. RESULTS: We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalised vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalised with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2% to 4.3% vs 6.3% to 24.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

8.
Blood Adv ; 5(5): 1535-1539, 2021 03 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1122295

ABSTRACT

Patients with plasma cell dyscrasias (PCDs) experience an increased burden of influenza, and current practice of single-dose annual influenza vaccination yields suboptimal protective immunity in these patients. Strategies to improve immunity to influenza in these patients are clearly needed. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing tandem Fluzone High-Dose influenza vaccination with standard-of-care influenza vaccination. Standard-of-care vaccination was single-dose age-based vaccination (standard dose, <65 years; high dose, ≥65 years), and patients in this arm received a saline placebo injection at 30 days. A total of 122 PCD patients were enrolled; 47 received single-dose standard-of-care vaccination, and 75 received 2 doses of Fluzone High-Dose vaccine. Rates of hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) titer seroprotection against all 3 strains (H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B) were significantly higher for patients after tandem high-dose vaccination vs control (87.3% vs 63.2%; P = .003) and led to higher seroprotection at the end of flu season (60.0% vs 31.6%; P = .04). These data demonstrate that tandem high-dose influenza vaccination separated by 30 days leads to higher serologic HAI titer responses and more durable influenza-specific immunity in PCD patients. Similar vaccine strategies may also be essential to achieve protective immunity against other emerging pathogens such as novel coronavirus in these patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02566265.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/immunology , Paraproteinemias/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Middle Aged
9.
Brief Bioinform ; 22(2): 1466-1475, 2021 03 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096499

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly worldwide, causing significant mortality. There is a mechanistic relationship between intracellular coronavirus replication and deregulated autophagosome-lysosome system. We performed transcriptome analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from COVID-19 patients and identified the aberrant upregulation of genes in the lysosome pathway. We further determined the capability of two circulating markers, namely microtubule-associated proteins 1A/1B light chain 3B (LC3B) and (p62/SQSTM1) p62, both of which depend on lysosome for degradation, in predicting the emergence of moderate-to-severe disease in COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization for supplemental oxygen therapy. Logistic regression analyses showed that LC3B was associated with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, independent of age, sex and clinical risk score. A decrease in LC3B concentration <5.5 ng/ml increased the risk of oxygen and ventilatory requirement (adjusted odds ratio: 4.6; 95% CI: 1.1-22.0; P = 0.04). Serum concentrations of p62 in the moderate-to-severe group were significantly lower in patients aged 50 or below. In conclusion, lysosome function is deregulated in PBMCs isolated from COVID-19 patients, and the related biomarker LC3B may serve as a novel tool for stratifying patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 from those with asymptomatic or mild disease. COVID-19 patients with a decrease in LC3B concentration <5.5 ng/ml will require early hospital admission for supplemental oxygen therapy and other respiratory support.


Subject(s)
/virology , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/metabolism , Lysosomes/metabolism , Microtubule-Associated Proteins/blood , /metabolism , Adult , Autophagy , Biomarkers/blood , Cell Cycle , Cholesterol/metabolism , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , RNA-Binding Proteins/blood , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
10.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(2): e98-e114, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065706

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension. METHODS: In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296. FINDINGS: Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons. INTERPRETATION: No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

11.
Complexity ; 2021, 2021.
Article in English | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-1058097

ABSTRACT

As of the end of October 2020, the cumulative number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 has exceeded 45 million and the cumulative number of deaths has exceeded 1 1 million all over the world Faced with the fatal pandemic, countries around the world have taken various prevention and control measures One of the important issues in epidemic prevention and control is the assessment of the prevention and control effectiveness Changes in the time series of daily new confirmed cases can reflect the impact of policies in certain regions In this paper, a smooth transition autoregressive (STAR) model is applied to investigate the intrinsic changes during the epidemic in certain countries and regions In order to quantitatively evaluate the influence of the epidemic control measures, the sequence is fitted to the STAR model;then, comparisons between the dates of transition points and those of releasing certain policies are applied Our model well fits the data Moreover, the nonlinear smooth function within the STAR model reveals that the implementation of prevention and control policies is effective in some regions with different speeds However, the ineffectiveness is also revealed and the threat of a second wave had already emerged

12.
J Pharm Biomed Anal ; 196: 113927, 2021 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1051794

ABSTRACT

To administer vitamin C (VC) with precision to patients with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we developed an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method to assess plasma VC concentrations. 31 patients with COVID-19 and 51 healthy volunteers were enrolled. VC stability was evaluated in blood, plasma, and precipitant-containing stabilizers. A proportion of 7.7 % of VC was degraded in blood at room temperature (RT) (approximately 20-25 °C) at 1.5 h post administration with respect to the proportion degraded at 0.5 h, but without statistical difference. VC was stable in plasma for 0.75 h at RT, 2 h at 4 °C, 5 days at -40 °C, and 4 h in precipitant-containing stabilizer (2 % oxalic acid) at RT. The mean plasma concentration of VC in patients with COVID-19 was 2.00 mg/L (0.5-4.90) (n = 8), which was almost 5-fold lower than that in healthy volunteers (9.23 mg/L (3.09. 35.30)) (n = 51). After high-dose VC treatment, the mean VC concentration increased to 13.46 mg/L (3.93. 34.70) (n = 36), higher than that in healthy volunteers, and was within the normal range (6-20 mg/L). In summary, we developed a simple UPLC-MS/MS method to quantify VC in plasma, and determined the duration for which the sample remained stable. VC levels in patients with COVID-19 were considerably low, and supplementation at 100 mg/kg/day is considered highly essential.


Subject(s)
Ascorbic Acid/blood , Ascorbic Acid/pharmacology , /prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/methods , Dietary Supplements , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Plasma/chemistry , Reference Values , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/methods , Young Adult
13.
EClinicalMedicine ; 25: 100478, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1047557

ABSTRACT

Background: The outbreak of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) poses a great challenge to global public health. New and effective intervention strategies are urgently needed to combat the disease. Methods: We conducted an open-label, non-randomized, clinical trial involving moderate COVID-19 patients according to study protocol. Patients were assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive either aerosol inhalation treatment with IFN-κ and TFF2, every 48 h for three consecutive dosages, in addition to standard treatment (experimental group), or standard treatment alone (control group). The end point was the time to discharge from the hospital. This study is registered with chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2000030262. Findings: A total of thirty-three eligible COVID-19 patients were enrolled from February 1, 2020 to April 6, 2020, eleven were assigned to the IFN-κ plus TFF2 group, and twenty-two to the control group. Safety and efficacy were evaluated for both groups. No treatment-associated severe adverse effects (SAE) were observed in the group treated with aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ plus TFF2, and no significant differences in the safety evaluations were observed between experimental and control groups. CT imaging was performed in all patients with the median improvement time of 5.0 days (IQR 3.0-9.0) in the experimental group versus 8.5 days (IQR 3.0-17.0) in the control group (p<0.05). In addition, the experimental group had a significant shorten median time in cough relief (4.5 days [IQR 2.0-7.0]) than the control group did (10.0 days [IQR 6.0-21.0])(p<0.005), in viral RNA reversion of 6.0 days (IQR 2.0-13.0) in the experimental group vs 9.5 days (IQR 3.0-23.0) in the control group (p < 0.05), and in the median hospitalization stays of 12.0 days (IQR 7.0-20.0) in the experimental group vs 15.0 days (IQR 10.0-25.0) in the control group (p<0.001), respectively. Interpretation: Aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ plus TFF2 is a safe treatment and is likely to significantly facilitate clinical improvement, including cough relief, CT imaging improvement, and viral RNA reversion, thereby achieves an early release from hospitalization. These data support to explore a scale-up trial with IFN-κ plus TFF2. Funding: National Major Project for Control and Prevention of Infectious Disease in China, Shanghai Science and Technology Commission, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission.

15.
JMIR Med Inform ; 8(9): e19588, 2020 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-993019

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In late December 2019, a pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 was first reported in Wuhan and spread worldwide rapidly. Currently, no specific medicine is available to treat infection with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to summarize the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 175 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were hospitalized in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from January 1 to January 31, 2020, and to establish a tool to identify potential critical patients with COVID-19 and help clinical physicians prevent progression of this disease. METHODS: In this retrospective study, clinical characteristics of 175 confirmed COVID-19 cases were collected and analyzed. Univariate analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were used to select variables. Multivariate analysis was applied to identify independent risk factors in COVID-19 progression. We established a nomogram to evaluate the probability of progression of the condition of a patient with COVID-19 to severe within three weeks of disease onset. The nomogram was verified using calibration curves and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 18 variables were considered to be risk factors after the univariate regression analysis of the laboratory parameters (P<.05), and LASSO regression analysis screened out 10 risk factors for further study. The six independent risk factors revealed by multivariate Cox regression were age (OR 1.035, 95% CI 1.017-1.054; P<.001), CK level (OR 1.002, 95% CI 1.0003-1.0039; P=.02), CD4 count (OR 0.995, 95% CI 0.992-0.998; P=.002), CD8 % (OR 1.007, 95% CI 1.004-1.012, P<.001), CD8 count (OR 0.881, 95% CI 0.835-0.931; P<.001), and C3 count (OR 6.93, 95% CI 1.945-24.691; P=.003). The areas under the curve of the prediction model for 0.5-week, 1-week, 2-week and 3-week nonsevere probability were 0.721, 0.742, 0.87, and 0.832, respectively. The calibration curves showed that the model had good prediction ability within three weeks of disease onset. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a predictive nomogram of critical patients with COVID-19 based on LASSO and Cox regression analysis. Clinical use of the nomogram may enable timely detection of potential critical patients with COVID-19 and instruct clinicians to administer early intervention to these patients to prevent the disease from worsening.

16.
J Clin Nurs ; 30(5-6): 783-792, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-991571

ABSTRACT

AIM: To understand COVID patients' experiences of and perspectives on disclosure of their illness and to explore and describe the factors affecting disclosure decisions among COVID patients in China. BACKGROUND: Disease disclosure is a critical component of prevention and control of a virus outbreak, and this is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding COVID patients' experiences and perspectives on disclosure could play a vital role in COVID management. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct qualitative in-depth interviews from April to June 2020. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then, a thematic analysis was conducted. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) were applied to this study. RESULTS: A total of 26 COVID-confirmed patients were recruited for the in-depth interviews. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis on disclosure: persons disclosed to, reasons for disclosure, reasons for nondisclosure and impact of disclosure. The participants disclosed their COVID diagnosis to different groups, including family, close friends, community members and workplace contacts. The main reasons for disclosure included the following: government policy, social responsibility, gaining support and fear of being blamed for nondisclosure. However, some participants decided not to disclose to some groups for fear of facing stigma and discrimination or to protect family members from discrimination. Despite the potential benefits of obtaining support after disclosure, many participants did experience stigma and discrimination, privacy exposure, psychological distress and social isolation. CONCLUSIONS: An individual's decision as to whether to disclose their COVID-positive status is affected by many factors. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 and reduce the potential risks of disclosure, such as discrimination and privacy exposure, a balanced intervention should be designed to protect COVID patients and to secure any contact tracing. Therefore, the chances of discrimination could be decreased and patients' confidentiality could be protected. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: As the number of COVID patients increases, disclosure of an individual's infectious status is encouraged by health departments. Despite the potential benefits of disclosure, discrimination and privacy exposure should not be ignored. A disclosure protocol is necessary to ensure patients' privacy regarding their COVID status.


Subject(s)
Disclosure , Patients , /diagnosis , /prevention & control , China/epidemiology , Confidentiality , Decision Making , Fear , Humans , Patients/psychology , Psychological Distress , Qualitative Research , Social Discrimination/psychology , Social Isolation , Social Stigma
17.
Trends in Food Science & Technology ; 2020.
Article in English | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-974673

ABSTRACT

Background Patients with COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 exhibit diverse clinical manifestations and severity including enteric involvement Commensal gut bacteria can contribute to defense against potential pathogens by promoting beneficial immune interactions Interventions targeting the gut microbiome may have systemic anti-viral effects in SARS-CoV-2 infection Scope and approach To summarise alterations of gut microbiota in patients with COVID-19 including impact of specific bacteria on disease severity, discuss current knowledge on the role of probiotics, prebiotics and dietary approaches including vitamin D in preventing and reducing disease susceptibility and review clinical studies using probiotics to target coronavirus A literature review on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, gut microbiome and immunity was undertaken and relevant literature was summarised and critically examined Key findings and conclusions Integrity of gut microbiome was perturbed in SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated with disease severity Poor prognosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in subjects with underlying co-morbidities who had increased gut permeability and reduced gut microbiome diversity Dietary microbes, including probiotics or selected prebiotics of Chinese origin, had anti-viral effects against other forms of coronavirus, and could positively impact host immune functions during SARS-CoV-2 infection Numerous studies are investigating the role of probiotics in preventing and reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, household contacts and affected patients An approach to strengthen intestinal barrier and lower pro-inflammatory states by adopting a more diversified diet during COVID-19 pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with immune dysfunction and gut microbiota alterations Delineating mechanisms of probiotics, prebiotics and diet with anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity present opportunities for discovery of microbial therapeutics to prevent and treat COVID-19

18.
Phytomedicine ; 81: 153433, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-957350

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies mainly reported the clinical characteristics of novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infections, but the research on clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of COVID-19 patients with stroke is still rare. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective study was conducted at 11 hospitals in 4 provinces of China, and COVID-19 patients with stroke were enrolled from February 24 to May 4, 2020. We analyzed epidemiological, demographic, and clinical characteristics of cases as well as the laboratory test results, treatment regimens and outcomes, and the clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes were compared between severe and nonsevere patients, and by age group, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients [mean age: 66.41 (SD 12.1) years] were enrolled. Among them, 9 (33.3%) were severe patients and 18 (66.7%) were nonsevere patients; 17 (63.0%) were female; 19 (70.4%) were aged 60 years and above. The most common symptoms were fever [19 (70.4%)], fatigue [12 (44.4%)] and cough [11 (40.7%)], respectively. Abnormal laboratory findings of COVID-19 patients with stroke included high levels of C-reactive protein [19 (73.1%)], D-dimer [14 (58.3%)], blood glucose [14 (53.8%)], fibrinogen [13 (50.0%)], and decreased lymphocytes [12 (44.4%)]. Comparing to nonsevere cases with stroke, severe patients with stroke were likely to be older, susceptible to receiving oxygen inhalation, and had more complications (p < 0.05). In addition, there were significant differences in lymphocytes, neutrophils, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, creatine kinase between the severe cases and nonsevere cases (p < 0.05). The older patients had a decreased platelet count and elevated fibrinogen, compared with the younger (p < 0.05). All patients (100%) received antiviral treatment, 12 (44.4%) received antibiotics treatment, 26 (96.3%) received Traditional Chinese Medicine (Lung cleansing & detoxifying decoction), and oxygen inhalation was in 18 (66.7%). The median duration of hospitalization was 16 days. By May 4, 2020, a total of 26 (96.3%) patients were cured and discharged, and 1 (3.7%) patients died. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with stroke had poor indicators of coagulation system, and severe and older patients might have a higher risk of complications and unfavorable coagulation system. However, the overall treatment outcome is favorable.


Subject(s)
/complications , Stroke/complications , Stroke/therapy , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/complications , Blood Coagulation Disorders/therapy , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Retrospective Studies , Stroke/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
19.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955714

ABSTRACT

Objective: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. Design: Multinational network cohort study. Setting: Electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). Participants: All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. Main outcome measures: 30-day complications during hospitalisation and death. Results: We studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged ≥50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%).Compared to 70,660 hospitalised with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%). Conclusions: Patients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases. What is already known about this topic: Patients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications.There is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions. What this study adds: Most people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities.Patients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had prevalent autoimmune diseases had higher prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes as compared to those with prevalent autoimmune diseases who were diagnosed with COVID-19.A variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases.For people with autoimmune diseases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was associated with worse outcomes and 30-day mortality compared to admission with influenza in the 2017-2018 season.

20.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955711

ABSTRACT

Objective: To estimate the proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who undergo dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Design: A network cohort study. Setting: Six databases from the United States containing routinely-collected patient data: HealthVerity, Premier, IQVIA Open Claims, Optum EHR, Optum SES, and VA-OMOP. Patients: Patients hospitalized with a clinical diagnosis or a positive test result for COVID-19. Interventions: Dialysis, tracheostomy, and ECMO. Measurements and Main Results: 240,392 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included (22,887 from HealthVerity, 139,971 from IQVIA Open Claims, 29,061 from Optum EHR, 4,336 from OPTUM SES, 36,019 from Premier, and 8,118 from VA-OMOP). Across the six databases, 9,703 (4.04% [95% CI: 3.96% to 4.11%]) patients received dialysis, 1,681 (0.70% [0.67% to 0.73%]) had a tracheostomy, and 398 (0.17% [95% CI: 0.15% to 0.18%]) patients underwent ECMO over the 30 days following hospitalization. Use of ECMO was generally concentrated among patients who were younger, male, and with fewer comorbidities except for obesity. Tracheostomy was used for a similar proportion of patients regardless of age, sex, or comorbidity. While dialysis was used for a similar proportion among younger and older patients, it was more frequent among male patients and among those with chronic kidney disease. Conclusion: Use of dialysis among those hospitalized with COVID-19 is high at around 4%. Although less than one percent of patients undergo tracheostomy and ECMO, the absolute numbers of patients who have undergone these interventions is substantial and can be expected to continue grow given the continuing spread of the COVID-19.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL