Are people more or less likely to follow advice that is accompanied by a confidence interval?

Are people more or less likely to follow numerical advice that communicates uncertainty in the form of a confidence interval? Prior research offers competing predictions. Although some research suggests that people are more likely to follow the advice of more confident advisors, other research suggests that people may be more likely to trust advisors who communicate uncertainty. Participants (N = 17,615) in 12 incentivized studies predicted the outcomes of upcoming sporting events, the preferences of other survey responders, or the number of deaths due to COVID-19 by a future date. We then provided participants with an advisor's best guess and manipulated whether or not that best guess was accompanied by a confidence interval. In all but one study, we found that participants were either directionally or significantly more likely to choose the advisor's forecast (over their own) when the advice was accompanied by a confidence interval. These results were consistent across different measures of advice following and did not depend on the width of the confidence interval (75% or 95%), advice quality, or on whether people had information about the advisor's past performance. These results suggest that advisors may be more persuasive if they provide reasonably-sized confidence intervals around their numerical estimates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Confidence intervals for prevalence estimates from complex surveys with imperfect assays.

There are established methods for estimating disease prevalence with associated confidence intervals for complex surveys with perfect assays, or simple random sample surveys with imperfect assays. We develop and study methods for the complicated case of complex surveys with imperfect assays. The new methods use the melding method to combine gamma intervals for directly standardized rates and established adjustments for imperfect assays by estimating sensitivity and specificity. One of the new methods appears to have at least nominal coverage in all simulated scenarios. We compare our new methods to established methods in special cases (complex surveys with perfect assays or simple surveys with imperfect assays). In some simulations, our methods appear to guarantee coverage, while competing methods have much lower than nominal coverage, especially when overall prevalence is very low. In other settings, our methods are shown to have higher than nominal coverage. We apply our method to a seroprevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 in undiagnosed adults in the United States between May and July 2020.

To curb research misreporting, replace significance and confidence by compatibility: A Preventive Medicine Golden Jubilee article.

It is well known that the statistical analyses in health-science and medical journals are frequently misleading or even wrong. Despite many decades of reform efforts by hundreds of scientists and statisticians, attempts to fix the problem by avoiding obvious error and encouraging good practice have not altered this basic situation. Statistical teaching and reporting remain mired in damaging yet editorially enforced jargon of "significance", "confidence", and imbalanced focus on null (no-effect or "nil") hypotheses, leading to flawed attempts to simplify descriptions of results in ordinary terms. A positive development amidst all this has been the introduction of interval estimates alongside or in place of significance tests and P-values, but intervals have been beset by similar misinterpretations. Attempts to remedy this situation by calling for replacement of traditional statistics with competitors (such as pure-likelihood or Bayesian methods) have had little impact. Thus, rather than ban or replace P-values or confidence intervals, we propose to replace traditional jargon with more accurate and modest ordinary-language labels that describe these statistics as measures of compatibility between data and hypotheses or models, which have long been in use in the statistical modeling literature. Such descriptions emphasize the full range of possibilities compatible with observations. Additionally, a simple transform of the P-value called the surprisal or S-value provides a sense of how much or how little information the data supply against those possibilities. We illustrate these reforms using some examples from a highly charged topic: trials of ivermectin treatment for Covid-19.

Confidence interval estimation for vaccine efficacy against COVID-19.

This article focuses on the construction of a confidence interval for vaccine efficacy against contagious coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in a fixed number of events design. Five different approaches are presented, and their performance is investigated in terms of the two-sided coverage probability, non-coverage probability at the lower tail, and expected confidence interval width. Furthermore, the effect of under-sensitivity of diagnosis tests on vaccine efficacy estimation was evaluated. Except for the exact conditional method, the non-coverage probability of the remaining methods may exceed the nominal significance level, e.g., 5%, even for a large number of total confirmed COVID-19 cases. The narrower confidence interval width from the Bayesian, approximate Poisson, and mid-P methods are on the cost of increased instability of coverage probability. When the sensitivity of diagnosis test in the vaccine group is lower than that in the placebo group, the reported vaccine efficacy tends to be overly optimistic. The exact conditional method is preferable to other methods in COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials when the total number of cases reaches 60; otherwise, mid-p method can be used to obtain a narrower interval width.

A Confidence Interval-Based Method for Classifier Re-Calibration.

We propose a re-calibration method for Machine Learning models, based on computing confidence intervals for the predicted confidence scores. We show the effectiveness of the proposed method on a COVID-19 diagnosis benchmark.

Determination of respiratory syncytial virus epidemic seasons by using 95% confidence interval of positivity rates, 2011-2021, Germany.

Based on our national outpatient sentinel surveillance, we have developed a novel approach to determine respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) epidemic seasons in Germany by using RSV positivity rate and its lower limit of 95% confidence interval. This method was evaluated retrospectively on nine RSV seasons, and it is also well-suited to describe off-season circulation of RSV in near real time as observed for seasons 2020/21 and 2021/22 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective application is of crucial importance to enable timely actions for health service delivery and prevention.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting.  We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Epidemiology and injury trends in the National Basketball Association: Pre- and per-COVID-19 (2017-2021).

PURPOSE: The aim this study was to provide an epidemiological injury analysis of the National Basketball Association, detailing aspects such as frequency rate, characteristics and impact on performance (missed games), including COVID-19 related and non-related injuries. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted from the 2017-18 to 2020-2021 season. Publicly available records from the official website of the National Basketball Association were collected, including player's profiling data, minutes played per game until the injury occurred, unique injuries and injury description [location (body area), diagnosis (or mechanism)], and missed games due to injury. RESULTS: A total of 625 players and 3543 unique injuries were registered during the period analyzed. There was an increased incidence of missed games and unique injuries ratios, from 2017-18 until 2020-21, even when excluding COVID-19 related cases. The main body areas of injuries corresponded to lower body injuries, specifically knee, ankle and foot. The tendon/ligament group, for both games missed and unique injuries, showed the higher ratios (1.16 and 0.21, respectively), followed by muscle (0.69 and 0.16, respectively) and bones (0.30 and 0.03, respectively). Irrespective of season, the higher percentage of unique injuries occurred in the group of players playing in the 26-35 minutes, followed by the 16-25 minutes played. Guards showed the highest injury ratios compared to other playing positions. Most injuries and missed games due to injury occurred from mid-season to the end of the regular season. The majority of both injuries and missed games were concentrated in the two central experience groups (from 6 to 15 years). CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous efforts to better understand injury risk factors, there has been an increase in unique injuries and missed games. The distribution by body area, type of injury, when they occurred, minutes played and outcomes by play position, age a or years of experience vary between season and franchises.

SARS-CoV-2 infection increases risk of acute kidney injury in a bimodal age distribution.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators. RESULTS: Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.

Using dipstick urinalysis to predict development of acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and may require renal replacement therapy (RRT). Dipstick urinalysis is frequently obtained, but data regarding the prognostic value of hematuria and proteinuria for kidney outcomes is scarce. METHODS: Patients with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) PCR, who had a urinalysis obtained on admission to one of 20 hospitals, were included. Nested models with degree of hematuria and proteinuria were used to predict AKI and RRT during admission. Presence of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and baseline serum creatinine were added to test improvement in model fit. RESULTS: Of 5,980 individuals, 829 (13.9%) developed an AKI during admission, and 149 (18.0%) of those with AKI received RRT. Proteinuria and hematuria degrees significantly increased with AKI severity (P < 0.001 for both). Any degree of proteinuria and hematuria was associated with an increased risk of AKI and RRT. In predictive models for AKI, presence of CKD improved the area under the curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval) to 0.73 (0.71, 0.75), P < 0.001, and adding baseline creatinine improved the AUC to 0.85 (0.83, 0.86), P < 0.001, when compared to the base model AUC using only proteinuria and hematuria, AUC = 0.64 (0.62, 0.67). In RRT models, CKD status improved the AUC to 0.78 (0.75, 0.82), P < 0.001, and baseline creatinine improved the AUC to 0.84 (0.80, 0.88), P < 0.001, compared to the base model, AUC = 0.72 (0.68, 0.76). There was no significant improvement in model discrimination when both CKD and baseline serum creatinine were included. CONCLUSIONS: Proteinuria and hematuria values on dipstick urinalysis can be utilized to predict AKI and RRT in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We derived formulas using these two readily available values to help prognosticate kidney outcomes in these patients. Furthermore, the incorporation of CKD or baseline creatinine increases the accuracy of these formulas.

Forecasting the Severity of COVID-19 Pandemic Amidst the Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Adoption of ARIMA Model.

Currently, the global report of COVID-19 cases is around 110 million, and more than 2.43 million related death cases as of February 18, 2021. Viruses continuously change through mutation; hence, different virus of SARS-CoV-2 has been reported globally. The United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Brazil, and Nigeria are the countries from which these emerged variants have been notified and now spreading globally. Therefore, these countries have been selected as a research sample for the present study. The datasets analyzed in this study spanned from March 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, and were obtained from the World Health Organization website. The study used the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to forecast coronavirus incidence in the UK, South Africa, Brazil, and Nigeria. ARIMA models with minimum Akaike Information Criterion Correction (AICc) and statistically significant parameters were chosen as the best models in this research. Accordingly, for the new confirmed cases, ARIMA (3,1,14), ARIMA (0,1,11), ARIMA (1,0,10), and ARIMA (1,1,14) models were chosen for the UK, South Africa, Brazil, and Nigeria, respectively. Also, the model specification for the confirmed death cases was ARIMA (3,0,4), ARIMA (0,1,4), ARIMA (1,0,7), and ARIMA (Brown); models were selected for the UK, South Africa, Brazil, and Nigeria, respectively. The results of the ARIMA model forecasting showed that if the required measures are not taken by the respective governments and health practitioners in the days to come, the magnitude of the coronavirus pandemic is expected to increase in the study's selected countries.

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis in a Series of Complete Autopsies from the Brazilian Amazon.

Between April and July 2020, and, therefore, prior to the broad recommendation of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19, a total of 50 full autopsies were performed in Manaus. We confirmed two invasive cases of aspergillosis through histopathology and gene sequencing (4%) in our autopsy series. The confirmed invasive aspergillosis incidence seems much lower than expected based on the "probable and possible" definitions, and an individualized approach should be considered for each country scenario. Interestingly, a prolonged length of stay in the intensive care unit was not observed in any of the cases. Timely diagnosis and treatment of fungal infection can reduce mortality rates.

Treatment of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is urgently needed to support treatment decisions for children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We performed an international observational cohort study of clinical and outcome data regarding suspected MIS-C that had been uploaded by physicians onto a Web-based database. We used inverse-probability weighting and generalized linear models to evaluate intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) as a reference, as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids and glucocorticoids alone. There were two primary outcomes: the first was a composite of inotropic support or mechanical ventilation by day 2 or later or death; the second was a reduction in disease severity on an ordinal scale by day 2. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation and the time until a reduction in organ failure and inflammation. RESULTS: Data were available regarding the course of treatment for 614 children from 32 countries from June 2020 through February 2021; 490 met the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of the 614 children with suspected MIS-C, 246 received primary treatment with IVIG alone, 208 with IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 with glucocorticoids alone; 22 children received other treatment combinations, including biologic agents, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy. Receipt of inotropic or ventilatory support or death occurred in 56 patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio for the comparison with IVIG alone, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 1.82) and in 17 patients who received glucocorticoids alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.33). The adjusted odds ratios for a reduction in disease severity were similar in the two groups, as compared with IVIG alone (0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone). The time until a reduction in disease severity was similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that recovery from MIS-C differed after primary treatment with IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, although significant differences may emerge as more data accrue. (Funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Program and others; BATS ISRCTN number, ISRCTN69546370.).

Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients. METHODS: For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed. RESULTS: Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.

Role of the IL-33/ST2 axis in cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Interleukin (IL)-33 and its unique receptor, ST2, play a pivotal role in the immune response to infection and stress. However, there have been conflicting reports of the role of IL-33 in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the potential of this axis in differentiating CVD patients and controls and with CVD disease severity, remains unclear. AIMS: 1) To quantify differences in circulating IL-33 and/or sST2 levels between CVD patients versus controls. 2) Determine association of these biomarkers with mortality in CVD and community cohorts. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Pubmed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Prospero and Cochrane databases, systematic review of studies published on IL-33 and/or sST2 levels in patients with CVD (heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, atrial fibrillation, stroke, coronary artery disease and hypertension) vs controls, and in cohorts of each CVD subtype was performed. Pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) of biomarker levels between CVD-cases versus controls and hazard ratios (HRs) for risk of mortality during follow-up in CVD patients, were assessed by random effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was evaluated with random-effects meta-regressions. From 1071 studies screened, 77 were meta-analysed. IL-33 levels were lower in HF and CAD patients vs controls, however levels were higher in stroke patients compared controls [Meta-SMD 1.455, 95% CI 0.372-2.537; p = 0.008, I2 = 97.645]. Soluble ST2 had a stronger association with risk of all-cause mortality in ACS (Meta-multivariate HR 2.207, 95% CI 1.160-4.198; p = 0.016, I2 = 95.661) than risk of all-cause mortality in HF (Meta-multivariate HR 1.425, 95% CI 1.268-1.601; p<0.0001, I2 = 92.276). There were insufficient data to examine the association of IL-33 with clinical outcomes in CVD. CONCLUSIONS: IL-33 and sST2 levels differ between CVD patients and controls. Higher levels of sST2 are associated with increased mortality in individuals with CVD. Further study of IL-33/ST2 in cardiovascular studies is essential to progress diagnostic and therapeutic advances related to IL-33/ST2 signalling.

Safety profile of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine: a disproportionality analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to identify potential safety signals of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), over the period preceding their repurpose as COVID-19 treatment options, through the analysis of safety data retrieved from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) pharmacovigilance database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a disproportionality analysis of FAERS data between the first quarter of 2004 and December 2019 using the OpenVigil2.1-MedDRA software. Disproportionality was quantified using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval (CIs). The reported mortality of CQ and HCQ was also investigated. RESULTS: The dataset contained 6,635,356 reports. Comparison of the RORs revealed significant differences between CQ and HCQ for the following adverse events: cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrhythmias, retinal disorders, corneal disorders, hearing disorders, headache, hepatic disorders, severe cutaneous reactions, musculoskeletal disorders, and cytopenia. Only CQ was associated with psychotic disorders, suicide, self-injury, convulsions, peripheral neuropathy, and decreased appetite. In multivariable logistic regression, death was more frequently associated with CQ use, advanced age, male sex, co-reported suicide and self-injury, cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrhythmias, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm previously published evidence and suggest that HCQ has a safer clinical profile compared to CQ, and thus could serve as the drug of choice for future therapeutic purposes.