High-dose methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone therapy for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects of high-dose methylprednisolone therapy in hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who required oxygen therapy, but not noninvasive/invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy. This retrospective observational study that was conducted from April 2021 to October 2021 at a secondary hospital in Japan enrolled patients who were administered 6 mg/day dexamethasone as an initial corticosteroid treatment on admission (dexamethasone group) and those who were administered ≥ 250 mg/day methylprednisolone (methylprednisolone group). Of the 42 participants, 40.5% (17/42) were included in the methylprednisolone group. The incidence of transfer to a tertiary hospital did not differ significantly between the methylprednisolone and dexamethasone groups (5.9% vs. 20%, p = 0.37), and in-hospital mortality was similar in both the groups (0% vs. 4%, p = 1.00). Participants in the methylprednisolone group had a significantly longer duration of oxygen therapy than the dexamethasone group (median (interquartile range) 8.5 (5.5–11.2) days vs. 4 (2.0–7.5) days, p < 0.05). Compared to dexamethasone, high-dose methylprednisolone therapy did not provide any added benefits for patients with severe COVID-19 who did not require respiratory mechanical support. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Signa Vitae is the property of Pharmamed Mado Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Which vertebral level should be used to calculate sarcopenia in covid-19 patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Evidence shows that CT-derived sarcopenia can predict adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. However, discrepancies exist as to which vertebral level can be used to calculate sarcopenia which can effectively serve as a prognostic tool. Thus, we aim to investigate the difference in sarcopenia calculated at the Thoracic and Lumbar vertebral levels. METHODS: An online literature search was conducted on Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google scholar. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles were selected for meta-analysis. The prevalence of sarcopenia calculated at the Thoracic level was 31% (95%CI 24%-37%; p < 0.00001; I2 = 86%), while sarcopenia calculated at the Lumbar vertebral level was 63% (95%CI 51%-75%; p < 0.00001; I2 = 88%). Meanwhile, sarcopenia calculated at the Upper thoracic level was a significant predictor of mortality OR 3.47 (95%CI 1.74-6.91; p = 0.0004; I2 = 56%)as compared to sarcopenia calculated at the lower thoracic OR 1.74 (95%Cl 0.91-3.33; p = 0.10; I2 = 60%)or lumbar level OR 2.49 (95%CI 0.45-13.72; p = 0.30; I2 = 57%). In addition to this sarcopenia calculated at the Upper thoracic level was also a significant predictor of severe illness OR 3.92 (95%CI 2.33-6.58; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) as compared to lower thoracic OR 1.40 (95%CI 0.78-2.53; p = 0.26; I2 = 67%) or lumbar level OR 1.64 (95%CI 0.26-10.50; p = 0.60; I2 = 81%) CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia calculated at the thoracic vertebrae and lumber level has different prognostic values. Sarcopenia is prevalent at the lumbar level. Sarcopenia at the thoracic level has a higher mortality and severity rate.

Tools and factors predictive of the severity of COVID-19.

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus infection caused worldwide confusion. The problem with this infection is that it causes severe illness in some patients, resulting in a high rate of death if appropriate treatment is not given. If patients with severe illness that requires treatment are appropriately identified, treatment can be focused on these patients. However, in the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, the inability to predict and diagnose the disease led to hospitals being overwhelmed. Therefore, various methods for the diagnosis of severe disease were developed early on, and various methods are still being investigated to predict high-risk patients. The currently available prediction methods are divided into those that predict the onset of severe disease and those used to determine the severity of the disease. Specifically, the main methods include genetic factors, serum humoral factors, laboratory tests, and diagnostic imaging. Since each of these factors has different features, using them in combination is likely to be advantageous.

COVID-19 infection in patients with haematological malignancies: A single-centre survey in the latest Omicron wave in China.

As the COVID-19 variant Omicron surge in Beijing, China, a better understanding of risk factors for adverse outcomes may improve clinical management in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) diagnosed with COVID-19. The study sample includes 412 cases, mainly represented by acute leukaemia, chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), plasma cell disorders and lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. COVID-19 pneumonia was observed in 10.4% (43/412) of patients, and severe/critical illness was observed in 5.3% (22/412). Among the 86 cases with advanced malignancies, 17.6% (12/86) of patients developed severe/critical COVID-19, which was significantly higher than reported in patients with stable malignancies (9/326, 2.70%, p < 0.001). Similarly, the advanced malignancy cohort had a higher mortality rate (9/86, 10.5% vs. 0/326, 0%, p < 0.001) and a poor 30-day overall survival (OS) compared with the stable malignancy cohort (74.2% vs. 100.0%, p < 0.0001). Overall, nine patients (2.2%) died. The primary cause of death was progressive HM in four patients and a combination of both COVID-19 and HM in five patients. In the multivariable analysis, over 65 years of age, comorbidities and advanced malignancy were correlated with severe/critical COVID-19 in HM patients. This study sheds light on the poor outcomes among COVID-19 HM patients with the leading cause of advanced malignancy.

What is the Impact of Vitamin D Levels on COVID-19 Severity?: A Systematic Review

Objective: We assessed studies probing at vitamin D deficiencies in both positive and negative COVID-19 cases. Methods: We measured mean, standard deviations, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of many studies to determine if there is a consistent relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19. Independent sample t-test compared non-survivors vs. survivors of COVID-19 and vitamin D levels, and moderate vs. severe COVID-19 symptoms and vitamin D levels. Results: We evaluated the difference in vitamin D levels (serum 25(OH)D, nmol/L) among those who tested positive for COVID-19 to those who tested negative. The average median serum 25(OH)D, nmol/L for patients who tested positive was 27.08 nmol/L (± 0.58 SD, 95% CI: 1.88) and the average median of serum 25(OH)D, nmol/L for patients who tested negative was 48.67 nmol/L (± 13.66 SD, 95% CI: 2.17) this difference was near significant (p=0.059). When looking at the relationship between vitamin D levels and severity of COVID-19 progression the result was not statistically significant, t(df)=0.84, p=0.216. When comparing the average values of vitamin D level among those who survived COVID-19 vs. those who did not the results were not statistically significant, t(269)=0.17, p=0.438. Conclusion: There seems to be a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and likelihood of developing severe illness of COVID-19 when observing studies individually. However, when comparing studies on a larger scale it seems that the significant difference seems to fade. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of eLife is the property of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Estimating the risk reduction of isolation on COVID-19 nonhousehold transmission and severe/critical illness in nonimmune individuals: September to November 2021.

There is growing scientific interest in immunity mandates/passports (IMP) for viral diseases in light of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. IMP isolate those who remain nonimmune from various settings to reduce nonhousehold transmissions from the nonimmune and reduce severe/critical illness among the nonimmune. A major limitation in the scientific literature is that there are currently no methods to quantify how many nonimmune individuals need to be isolated to achieve these purported benefits. This paper develops a procedure for estimating the benefits of IMP using a novel variant of the number needed to treat which we call the number needed to isolate (NNI). We use data from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to demonstrate the properties and utility of the NNI and to inform the debate about IMP. We focus on data from the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and Israel during the fall 2021 when the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant predominated.

Baseline physical activity and the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19: A dose-response meta-analysis.

To provide a scientific basis for improved exercise-based immunity, a meta-analysis was used to explore the dose-response relationship between physical activity (PA) and the risk of severe illness and mortality related to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). To this end, we searched PubMed, Web of Science databases from January 2020 through April 2022. 14 observational studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, including 2840 cases of severe illness and death from COVID-19. Categorical dose-relationship analysis showed that the risks of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19 were, respectively, 46% (risk ratio (RR): 0.54; confidence intervals (CIs): 0.41-0.68) and 59% (RR = 0.41; 95%CI: 0.23-0.58) lower for the highest dose of PA compared with the lowest dose of PA. The results of the continuous dose-response analysis show an inverse nonlinear relationship (Pnon-linearity < 0.05) between PA and both the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19. For PA below 10 MET-h/week (MET-h/week: metabolic equivalent of task-hours/week), an increase of 4 MET-h/week (1 h of moderate-intensity or 0.5 h of high-intensity PA) was associated with 8% and 11% reductions in the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19. PA above 10 MET-h/week lowered the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19 by 7% and 9%, respectively, for each 4 MET-h/week increase. Doses of WHO-recommended PA levels (10 MET-h/week) may be required for more substantial reductions in the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19.

The Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Preventing Severe Illness and Death - Real-world Data from a Cohort of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background: While long-term studies on the correlates of protection, vaccine effectiveness, and enhanced surveillance are awaited for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, studies on breakthrough infections help understand the nature and course of this illness among vaccinated individuals and guide in public health preparedness. This study aims to compare the differences in the hospitalization outcomes SARS-CoV-2 infection of fully vaccinated individuals with with those of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated individuals. Materials and Methods: Single institution observational cohort study. This study compared the differences in clinical, biochemical parameters and the hospitalization outcomes of 53 fully vaccinated individuals with those of unvaccinated (1464) and partially vaccinated (231) individuals, among a cohort of 2,080 individuals hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive statistics and propensity-score weighted multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical and laboratory parameters were used to compare the differences and to identify factors associated with outcomes. Results: Completing the course of vaccination protected individuals from developing severe COVID-19 as evidenced by lower proportions of those with hypoxia, abnormal levels of inflammatory markers, requiring ventilatory support, and death compared to unvaccinated and partially vaccinated individuals. There were no differences in these outcomes among patients who received either vaccine type approved in India. Conclusions: Efforts should be made to improve the vaccination rates as a timely measure to prepare for the upcoming waves of this highly transmissible pandemic. Vaccination rates of the communities may also guide in the planning of the health needs and appropriate use of medical resources.

Elevated Natriuretic Peptides in Patients With Severe or Critical COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in an extraordinary increase in the number of patients who are severely critically ill. For many of these patients, cardiovascular risk factors are key contributors to the development of severe illness. Laboratory markers for cardiac damage and failure, such as natriuretic peptides, are reported to be elevated in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare natriuretic peptide levels in patients with severe COVID-19 vs those with nonsevere COVID-19. PubMed and medRxiv were searched through April 7, 2020. The outcome of interest was the difference in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal-proBNP levels in patients with severe vs nonsevere COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 9 retrospective cohort studies that had a total of 1,575 patients with COVID-19 who had their natriuretic peptides measured and were classified by disease severity. All studies were conducted in China. Patients with severe COVID-19 had significantly higher BNP levels than patients with nonsevere COVID-19 (mean difference, 69.56 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1.77-137.35 pg/mL; P = .04, I2 = 83%). Similarly, patients with severe COVID-19 had significantly higher N-terminal-proBNP levels than patients with nonsevere COVID-19 (mean difference, 518.65 pg/mL; 95% CI, 152.40-884.90 pg/mL; P = .006, I2 = 86%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Chinese patients with severe COVID-19 had higher natriuretic peptide levels than those with nonsevere COVID-19. Studies from all countries affected by the virus will help to further delineate whether the cause is directly or indirectly of cardiac origin and whether preexisting heart failure has an influence on this disparity.

Dengue and COVID-19: two sides of the same coin.

BACKGROUND: Many countries in Asia and Latin America are currently facing a double burden of outbreaks due to dengue and COVID-19. Here we discuss the similarities and differences between the two infections so that lessons learnt so far from studying both infections will be helpful in further understanding their immunopathogenesis and to develop therapeutic interventions. MAIN BODY: Although the entry routes of the SARS-CoV-2 and the dengue virus (DENV) are different, both infections result in a systemic infection, with some similar clinical presentations such as fever, headache, myalgia and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, while dengue is usually associated with a tendency to bleed, development of micro and macrothrombi is a hallmark of severe COVID-19. Apart from the initial similarities in the clinical presentation, there are further similarities between such as risk factors for development of severe illness, cytokine storms, endothelial dysfunction and multi-organ failure. Both infections are characterised by a delayed and impaired type I IFN response and a proinflammatory immune response. Furthermore, while high levels of potent neutralising antibodies are associated with protection, poorly neutralising and cross-reactive antibodies have been proposed to lead to immunopathology by different mechanisms, associated with an exaggerated plasmablast response. The virus specific T cell responses are also shown to be delayed in those who develop severe illness, while varying degrees of endothelial dysfunction leads to increased vascular permeability and coagulation abnormalities. CONCLUSION: While there are many similarities between dengue and SARS-CoV-2 infection, there are also key differences especially in long-term disease sequelae. Therefore, it would be important to study the parallels between the immunopathogenesis of both infections for development of more effective vaccines and therapeutic interventions.

Therapeutic-Dose vs. Prophylactic-Dose Anticoagulation Therapy for Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in a Practice-Based Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial.Methods and Results: In the CLOT-COVID study, 225 patients with severe COVID-19 on admission requiring mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were divided into patients with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (N=110) and those with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation (N=115). There was no significant difference in the incidence of thrombosis between the groups (9.1% vs. 7.8%, P=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Among a cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, approximately half received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, although it did not show a potential benefit compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation.

Heterogeneity and Risk of Bias in Studies Examining Risk Factors for Severe Illness and Death in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence on the impacts of demographics and comorbidities on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, as well as the sources of the heterogeneity and publication bias of the relevant studies. Two authors independently searched the literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and CINAHL on 18 May 2021; removed duplicates; screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts by using criteria; and extracted data from the eligible articles. The variations among the studies were examined by using Cochrane, Q.; I2, and meta-regression. Out of 11,975 articles that were obtained from the databases and screened, 559 studies were abstracted, and then, where appropriate, were analyzed by meta-analysis (n = 542). COVID-19-related severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death were significantly correlated with comorbidities, male sex, and an age older than 60 or 65 years, although high heterogeneity was present in the pooled estimates. The study design, the study country, the sample size, and the year of publication contributed to this. There was publication bias among the studies that compared the odds of COVID-19-related deaths, severe illness, and admission to the ICU on the basis of the comorbidity status. While an older age and chronic diseases were shown to increase the risk of developing severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death among the COVID-19 patients in our analysis, a marked heterogeneity was present when linking the specific risks with the outcomes.

Severe COVID-19 in people 55 and older during the first year of the pandemic in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to many contacts is the main risk factor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, while risk of serious disease and death is chiefly determined by old age and comorbidities. Relative and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) of multiple medical and social exposures for COVID-19 outcomes have not been evaluated among older adults. OBJECTIVES: We describe the effect of multiple exposures on the odds of testing positive for the virus and of severe disease (hospital care or death) and PAFs in Swedish citizens aged 55 years and above. METHODS: We used national registers to follow all citizens aged 55 years and above with respect to (1) testing positive, (2) hospitalization, and (3) death between 31 January 2020 and 1 February 2021. RESULTS: Of 3,410,241 persons, 156,017 (4.6%, mean age 68.3 years) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 35,999 (1.1%, mean age 76.7 years) were hospitalized or died (12,384 deaths, 0.4%, mean age 84.0 years). Among the total cohort, the proportion living without home care or long-term care was 98.8% among persons aged 55-64 and 22.1% of those aged 95 and above. After multiple adjustment, home care and long-term care were associated with odds ratios of 7.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-9.1) and 22.5 (95% CI 19.6-25.7) for mortality, with PAFs of 21.9% (95% CI 20.9-22.9) and 33.3% (95% CI 32.4-34.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among Swedish residents aged 55 years and above, those with home care or long-term care had markedly increased risk for COVID-19 death during the first year of the pandemic, with over 50% of deaths attributable to these factors.

Factors associated with the risk perception of COVID-19 infection and severe illness: A cross-sectional study in Japan.

Understanding COVID-19 risk perception may help inform public health messaging aimed at encouraging preventive measures and improving countermeasures against the pandemic. We conducted an online survey of 29,708 Japanese adults in February 2021 and estimated the associations between COVID-19 risk perception and a broad array of individual factors. Two logistic regressions were constructed to estimate factors associated with the risk perception of COVID-19 (defined as responding that one might become infected within the next 6 months), and of severe illness among those who responded that they might become infected (defined as responding that one would become severely ill). After adjusting for covariates, those with a higher perceived risk of the COVID-19 vaccine had higher odds of risk perception for both infection and severe illness. Interestingly, those with higher odds of risk perception of being infected were more likely to report obtaining their information from healthcare workers whereas those with lower odds were more likely to report obtaining their information from the Internet or the government; those with lower odds of risk perception of being severely ill were more likely to report obtaining their information from the Internet. The higher the trust level in the government as a COVID-19 information source, the lower the odds of both risk perception of being infected and becoming severely ill. The higher the trust levels in social networking services as a COVID-19 information source, the higher the odds of risk perception of becoming severely ill. Public health messaging should address the factors identified in our study.

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis.

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness of boosters against COVID-19, especially as new variants continue to emerge, is limited. Our objective was to assess demographic, clinical, and outcome variables of patients requiring hospitalization for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing fully vaccinated and boosted (FV&B), fully vaccinated (FV), and unvaccinated (UV) patients. Methods: This multicenter observational cohort analysis compared demographic, clinical, and outcome variables in FV&B, FV, and UV adults hospitalized for COVID-19. Partially vaccinated (PV) and individuals still hospitalized beyond the designated follow-up date of February 1, 2022 were excluded. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included characteristics and outcomes in subpopulations of intensive care and geriatric (age >65) patients. Findings: Between August 12th, 2021 and January 20th, 2022, 8232 patient encounters had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 and required inpatient treatment. Of the 8232 encounters requiring hospitalization, 448 (5.8%) were FV&B, 2257 (29.2%) were FV, and 5023 (65.0%) were UV; 357 PV and 147 still hospitalized were excluded. The median age of FV&B cohort was 73 (IQR 62, 82) compared to 70 (IQR 59, 80) for FV and 59 (IQR 45, 71) for UV (0.001). Most patients were female in both the FB&V and UV groups with 51.1% and 51.8%, respectively, while the FV group had a majority of males (51.3%). The median Elixhauser weighted score was 12 (IQR 3, 22) for FV&B, 10 (IQR 2, 20) for FV, and 9 (IQR 0, 17) for UV groups (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 7.1% in the FV&B, 10.3% in the FV group, and 12.8% in the UV group (p < 0.001). The FV&B group had lower in-hospital mortality than both FV and UV groups (p = 0.045 and p = 0.001, respectively). The FV group had lower in-hospital mortality than the UV group (p = 0.004). Interpretation: Fully vaccinated and boosted patients requiring hospital-level care for breakthrough COVID-19 have lower in-hospital mortality than fully vaccinated and unvaccinated patients despite being older and higher risk at baseline. Boosters offer added protection beyond full vaccination in preventing death. As COVID-19 continues to spread, larger expansive trials are needed to further identify risk factors for severe outcomes among the FV&B population. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Surviving the Storm: Cytokine Biosignature in SARS-CoV-2 Severity Prediction.

A significant part of the world population has been affected by the devastating SARS-CoV-2 infection. It has deleterious effects on mental and physical health and global economic conditions. Evidence suggests that the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection may result in immunopathology such as neutrophilia, lymphopenia, decreased response of type I interferon, monocyte, and macrophage dysregulation. Even though most individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus suffer mild symptoms similar to flu, severe illness develops in some cases, including dysfunction of multiple organs. Excessive production of different inflammatory cytokines leads to a cytokine storm in COVID-19 infection. The large quantities of inflammatory cytokines trigger several inflammation pathways through tissue cell and immune cell receptors. Such mechanisms eventually lead to complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, intravascular coagulation, capillary leak syndrome, failure of multiple organs, and, in severe cases, death. Thus, to devise an effective management plan for SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is necessary to comprehend the start and pathways of signaling for the SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced cytokine storm. This article discusses the current findings of SARS-CoV-2 related to immunopathology, the different paths of signaling and other cytokines that result in a cytokine storm, and biomarkers that can act as early signs of warning for severe illness. A detailed understanding of the cytokine storm may aid in the development of effective means for controlling the disease's immunopathology. In addition, noting the biomarkers and pathophysiology of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection as early warning signs can help prevent severe complications.

Clinical Laboratory Markers in COVID-19

Background: The causative agent of the present COVID-19 pandemic is a novel RNA virus called SARS CoV-2. Clinical laboratory has a central role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and predicting the progression of the disease. Several hematological, biochemical, immunological, and coagulation parameters change during the course of the disease. Based on the information from several studies, it is presumed that virus replication alters the immune system of the body. These alterations cause cellular damage in various organs like the lungs, liver, heart, and bone marrow. Ultimately, it may lead to multi-organ failure and death. Methods: An Internet search in Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Scholarly articles was performed. Studies reporting on changes in laboratory parameters in COVID-19 were selected, data extracted, and analyzed. Conclusion: Laboratory markers are helpful in the diagnosis of cases and more importantly, to identify those patients where chances of disease progression to severity are present. This will not only reduce the burden on the health care system but also reduce the mortality rate by channelizing resources to those cases who need critical care and management.

Factors Defining the Development of Severe Illness in Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Early triage of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is pivotal in managing the disease. However, studies on the clinical risk score system of the risk factors for the development of severe disease are limited. Hence, we conducted a clinical risk score system for severe illness, which might optimize appropriate treatment strategies. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study at the JinYinTan Hospital from January 24, 2020 to March 31, 2020. We evaluated the demographic, clinical, and laboratory data and performed a 10-fold cross-validation to split the data into a training set and validation set. We then screened the prognostic factors for severe illness using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and logistic regression, and finally conducted a risk score to estimate the probability of severe illness in the training set. Data from the validation set were used to validate the score. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included. From 49 potential risk factors, 3 variables were measured as the risk score: neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ( OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.39), albumin ( OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83), and chest computed tomography abnormalities ( OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.41-2.86) and the AUC of the validation cohort was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.7667-0.8776). CONCLUSION: This report may help define the potential of developing severe illness in patients with COVID-19 at an early stage, which might be related to the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, albumin, and chest computed tomography abnormalities.

The Predictive Value of Myoglobin for COVID-19-Related Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Cardiac injury is detected in numerous patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been demonstrated to be closely related to poor outcomes. However, an optimal cardiac biomarker for predicting COVID-19 prognosis has not been identified. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for published articles between December 1, 2019 and September 8, 2021. Eligible studies that examined the anomalies of different cardiac biomarkers in patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) were extracted. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. Results: A total of 63 studies, with 64,319 patients with COVID-19, were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The prevalence of elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and myoglobin (Mb) in the general population with COVID-19 was 22.9 (19-27%) and 13.5% (10.6-16.4%), respectively. However, the presence of elevated Mb was more common than elevated cTnI in patients with severe COVID-19 [37.7 (23.3-52.1%) vs.30.7% (24.7-37.1%)]. Moreover, compared with cTnI, the elevation of Mb also demonstrated tendency of higher correlation with case-severity rate (Mb, r = 13.9 vs. cTnI, r = 3.93) and case-fatality rate (Mb, r = 15.42 vs. cTnI, r = 3.04). Notably, elevated Mb level was also associated with higher odds of severe illness [Mb, OR = 13.75 (10.2-18.54) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.06 (3.94-12.65)] and mortality [Mb, OR = 13.49 (9.3-19.58) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.75 (4.4-13.66)] than cTnI. Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 and elevated Mb levels are at significantly higher risk of severe disease and mortality. Elevation of Mb may serve as a marker for predicting COVID-19-related adverse outcomes. Prospero Registration Number: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175133, CRD42020175133.

Risk of severe illness of COVID-19 patients with NAFLD and increased NAFLD fibrosis scores.

BACKGROUND: There is still little knowledge about the association of liver fibrosis with the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The aim of the study was to determine the association of NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS)-determined liver fibrosis with clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with NAFLD. METHODS: The NAFLD was diagnosed by the Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI) in the absence of other causes of chronic liver diseases. NFS was used to evaluate the severity of liver fibrosis. RESULTS: A total of 86 COVID-19 patients with NAFLD were included. The median age was 43.5 years, and 58.1% of patients were male. Thirty-eight (44.2%) patients had advanced liver fibrosis according to the NFS. Multivariate analysis indicated that concurrent diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 8.264, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.202-56.830, p = 0.032) and advanced liver fibrosis (OR 11.057, 95% CI 1.193-102.439, p = 0.034) were independent risk factors of severe illness in COVID-19 patients with NAFLD. CONCLUSION: NAFLD patients with NFS-determined advanced liver fibrosis are at higher risk of severe COVID-19.