SARS-CoV-2 infection and smoking: What is the association? A brief review.

Susceptibility to severe illness from COVID-19 is anticipated to be associated with cigarette smoking as it aggravates the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, including infections. This is particularly important with the advent of a new strain of coronaviruses, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that has led to the present pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although, the effects of smoking on COVID-19 are less described and controversial, we presume a link between smoking and COVID-19. Smoking has been shown to enhance the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) key entry genes utilized by SARS-CoV-2 to infect cells and induce a 'cytokine storm', which further increases the severity of COVID-19 clinical course. Nevertheless, the impact of smoking on ACE-2 and TMPRSS2 receptors expression remains paradoxical. Thus, further research is necessary to unravel the association between smoking and COVID-19 and to pursue the development of potential novel therapies that are able to constrain the morbidity and mortality provoked by this infectious disease. Herein we present a brief overview of the current knowledge on the correlation between smoking and the expression of SARS-CoV-2 key entry genes, clinical manifestations, and disease progression.

Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Relative risk reduction: Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials are often reported in the media and medical journals as the relative risk reduction. The present article explains why the relative risk reduction is a misinformative measure that promotes disinformation when reporting efficacy in clinical research studies such as randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines. The relative risk reduction is based on the relative risk, a proportional measure or ratio used in epidemiologic studies to estimate the probability of a disease associated with an exposure. The present article demonstrates how the relative risk reduction and relative risk obscure the magnitude of disease risk reduction in clinical research. The absolute risk reduction is shown to be a more precise and reliable measure of treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical research studies. The absolute risk reduction reciprocal also measures the number needed to treat or vaccinate, and is a more accurate measure than the relative risk reduction for comparing risk reductions of clinical studies. Additionally, the present article reviews consequences of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy misinformation disseminated through media reports. The article concludes that relative risk reduction should not be used to measure treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials. What is new?: •Unreliability of relative measures in clinical trials is graphically illustrated, demonstrating constant relative measures as absolute measures change.•Misuse of relative measures in clinical research is historically linked to misinterpretation of Jerome Cornfield's advice on measuring causative and associative effects.•Consequences of disinformation and misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and modern clinical medicine are described.•The proper use of absolute measures in meta-analyses is explained.

Vaccination policies for healthcare personnel: Current challenges and future perspectives.

Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at occupational risk for acquisition of several vaccine-preventable diseases and transmission to patients. Vaccinations of HCP are justified to confer them immunity but also to protect susceptible patients and healthcare services from outbreaks, HCP absenteeism and presenteeism. Mandatory vaccination policies for HCP are increasingly adopted and achieve high and sustainable vaccination rates in short term. In this article we review the scientific evidence for HCP vaccination. We also address issues pertaining to vaccination policies for HCP and present the challenges of implementation of mandatory versus voluntary vaccination policies. Finally, we discuss the issue of mandatory vaccination of HCP against COVID-19.

Risk factors for impaired pulmonary diffusion function in convalescent COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The long-term prognosis of COVID-19 survivors remains poorly understood. It is evidenced that the lung is the main damaged organ in COVID-19 survivors, most notably in impairment of pulmonary diffusion function. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis of the potential risk factors for impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) in convalescent COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases for relevant studies from inception until January 7, 2022, limited to papers involving human subjects. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality. Fix-effects and random-effects models were used to pool results. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. The publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021265377. Findings: A total of eighteen qualified articles were identified and included in the systematic review, and twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that female (OR: 4.011; 95% CI: 2.928-5.495), altered chest computerized tomography (CT) (OR: 3.002; 95% CI: 1.319-6.835), age (OR: 1.018; 95% CI: 1.007-1.030), higher D-dimer levels (OR: 1.012; 95% CI: 1.001-1.023) and urea nitrogen (OR: 1.004;95% CI: 1.002-1.007) were identified as risk factors for impaired DLCO. Interpretation: Pulmonary diffusion capacity was the most common impaired lung function in recovered patients with COVID-19. Several risk factors, such as female, altered chest CT, older age, higher D-dimer levels and urea nitrogen are associated with impairment of DLCO. Raising awareness and implementing interventions for possible modifiable risk factors may be valuable for pulmonary rehabilitation. Funding: This work was financially supported by Emergency Key Program of Guangzhou Laboratory (EKPG21-29, EKPG21-31), Incubation Program of National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars by Guangzhou Medical University (GMU2020-207).

COVID-19: A pandemic that threatens physical and mental health by promoting physical inactivity.

Ever since the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, it has killed millions of people worldwide. Even people not stricken by this disease are not spared from its negative economic, social, and health-related drawbacks. This commentary provides insight into the potential mechanisms involved in the development of depression and emotional negativity escalating during the current pandemic. In particular, preventive measures of COVID-19, such as staying at home, are sedentarism measures that decrease physical activity. Physical inactivity alters gut microbiome structure in a fashion that promotes gut dysbiosis and flaring of systemic inflammation, leading to the buildup of body fat. Obesity, which contributes to a trail of health-depleting disorders, furthers gut microbial disintegration while fat tissue stimulates the release of cytokines, promotes metabolic resistance, and alters signaling involved in the production of antioxidants. As a result, the body gets flooded by toxic molecules such pro-inflammatory mediators, free radicals, and advanced glycation end products. These toxic molecules alter cellular function in all body tissues, including those of the brain. Neuroinflammation is associated with progressive declines in cognitive and motor functions along with dysregulation in emotions. Counteracting the sedentarism enforced by the COVID-19 pandemic through the participation in suitable indoors activities and the intake of healthy food is likely to protect against or revert physiological impairments that may affect people retreating to their homes during the current crisis, eventually restoring physical and mental health.

Effect of COVID-19 on Pre-existing Liver disease: What Hepatologist Should Know?

COVID-19 is characterized by predominant respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms. Liver enzymes derangement is seen in 15-55% of the patients. Advanced age, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, malignancy, and cardiovascular disease predispose them to severe disease and the need for hospitalization. Data on pre-existing liver disease in patients with COVID-19 is limited, and most studies had only 3-8% of these patients. Patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver (MAFLD) had shown a 4-6 fold increase in severity of COVID-19, and its severity and mortality increased in patients with higher fibrosis scores. Patients with chronic liver disease had shown that cirrhosis is an independent predictor of severity of COVID-19 with increased hospitalization and mortality. Increase in Child Turcotte Pugh (CTP) score and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score increases the mortality in these patients. Few case reports had shown SARS-CoV-2 as an acute event in the decompensation of underlying chronic liver disease. Immunosuppression should be reduced prophylactically in patients with autoimmune liver disease and post-transplantation with no COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir is found to be safe in limited studies in a patient with cirrhosis and COVID-19. For hepatologists, cirrhosis with COVID-19 is a pertinent issue as the present pandemic will have severe disease in patients with chronic liver disease leading to more hospitalization and decompensation.

Temporary reduction in fine particulate matter due to 'anthropogenic emissions switch-off' during COVID-19 lockdown in Indian cities.

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a global response to limit associated mortality, with social distancing and lockdowns being imposed. In India, human activities were restricted from late March 2020. This 'anthropogenic emissions switch-off' presented an opportunity to investigate impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures on ambient air quality in five Indian cities (Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai), using in-situ measurements from 2015 to 2020. For each year, we isolated, analysed and compared fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentration data from 25 March to 11 May, to elucidate the effects of the lockdown. Like other global cities, we observed substantial reductions in PM2.5 concentrations, from 19 to 43% (Chennai), 41-53% (Delhi), 26-54% (Hyderabad), 24-36% (Kolkata), and 10-39% (Mumbai). Generally, cities with larger traffic volumes showed greater reductions. Aerosol loading decreased by 29% (Chennai), 11% (Delhi), 4% (Kolkata), and 1% (Mumbai) against 2019 data. Health and related economic impact assessments indicated 630 prevented premature deaths during lockdown across all five cities, valued at 0.69 billion USD. Improvements in air quality may be considered a temporary lockdown benefit as revitalising the economy could reverse this trend. Regulatory bodies must closely monitor air quality levels, which currently offer a baseline for future mitigation plans.