Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Hormone replacement therapy and COVID-19 outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.

Exogenous estrogen is associated with reduced coronavirus disease (COVID) mortality in nonimmunosuppressed/immunocompromised (non-ISC) postmenopausal females. Here, we examined the association of estrogen or testosterone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with COVID outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) compared to non-ISC individuals, given known differences in sex-based risk in these populations. SOTRs ≥45 years old with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and July 31, 2022 were identified using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. The association of HRT use in the last 24 months (exogenous systemic estrogens for females; testosterone for males) with major adverse renal or cardiac events in the 90 days post-COVID diagnosis and other secondary outcomes were examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression. We repeated these analyses in a non-ISC control group for comparison. Our study included 1135 SOTRs and 43 383 immunocompetent patients on HRT with COVID-19. In non-ISC, HRT use was associated with lower risk of major adverse renal or cardiac events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.65 for females; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77 for males) and all secondary outcomes. In SOTR, HRT reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98) and mortality (aHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.85) in males with COVID but not in females. The potentially modifying effects of immunosuppression on the benefits of HRT requires further investigation.

The effects of exogenous estrogen in women with SAR-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Does exogenous estrogen use affect COVID-19-related mortality in women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) was associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause fatality related to COVID-19 in postmenopausal women (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.18, 0.44; 4 studies, 21 517 women) but the combined oral contraceptive pill in premenopausal women did not have a significant effect (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42-2.41; 2 studies, 5099 women). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Men are much more likely to die from COVID-19 than women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this systematic meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted using the following search terms related toCOVID-19 and estrogen, sex hormones, hormonal replacement, menopause, or contraception. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify relevant studies published between December 2019 and December 2021. We also searched MedRxiv as a preprint database and reviewed the reference lists of all included studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing clinical studies until December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All comparative studies that compared the rates mortality and morbidity (hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ventilation support) due to COVID-19 in women using exogenous estrogen to a control group of women (nonusers) were included. A review of the studies for inclusion, extraction of data, and assessment of the risk of bias was performed independently by two reviewers. The ROBINS-I tool and the RoB 2 tool were used for bias assessment of the included studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager V5.4.1. The I2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After searching the databases, we identified a total of 5310 studies. After removing duplicate records, ineligible studies, and ongoing studies, a total of four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial comprising 177 809 participants were included in this review. There was a moderate certainty of evidence that MHT was associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause fatality related to COVID-19 (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18, 0.44; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 21 517 women). The review indicated a low certainty of evidence for other outcomes. The mortality rate of premenopausal women in the combined oral contraceptive pill group did not differ significantly from the control group (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42-2.41; 2 studies, 5099 women). MHT marginally increased the rate of hospitalization and ICU admission (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18-1.61; 3 studies, 151 485 women), but there was no significant difference in the need for respiratory support between MHT users and nonusers (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52-1.59; 3 studies, 151 485 women). Overall, the tendency and magnitude of the effects of MHT in postmenopausal women with COVID-19 were consistent across the included studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The certainty of the evidence for other outcomes of this review may be limited, as all included studies were cohort studies. In addition, the dosages and durations of exogenous estrogen used by postmenopausal women varied from study to study, and combined progestogen administration may have had some effect on the outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of this study can aid in counseling postmenopausal women taking MHT when they are diagnosed with COVID, as they have a lower chance of death than those not taking MHT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Khon Kaen University provided financial support for this review and had no involvement at any stage of the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO, CRD42021271882.

Effect of menopausal hormone therapy on COVID-19 severe outcomes in women - A population-based study of the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data.

Whether menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) lessens the severity of COVID-19 among women is unclear. Leveraging a U.S. national COVID-19 cohort and a cross-sectional analysis, we found MHT use was marginally associated with a lower risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95 % CI 0.53-1.01) and significantly associated with a lower risk of prolonged hospital stay (0.7, 0.49-0.99) among inpatient women. When stratifying by MHT type, estrogen-only and estrogen-plus-progestin therapies had a more prominent protective effect than progestin-only therapy, although this difference did not achieve statistical significance. Women with COVID-19 can continue to use MHT. Clinical trials are needed to evaluate MHT's therapeutic effect on COVID-19, especially in terms of severity.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

How Estrogen, Testosterone, and Sex Differences Influence Serum Immunoglobulin Isotype Patterns in Mice and Humans.

Females often exhibit superior immune responses compared to males toward vaccines and pathogens such as influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2. To help explain these differences, we first studied serum immunoglobulin isotype patterns in C57BL/6 male and female mice. We focused on IgG2b, an isotype that lends to virus control and that has been previously shown to be elevated in murine females compared to males. Improvements in IgG2b serum levels, and/or IgG2b ratios with other non-IgM isotypes, were observed when: (i) wildtype (WT) female mice were compared to estrogen receptor knockout mice (IgG2b, IgG2b/IgG3, IgG2b/IgG1, and IgG2b/IgA were all higher in WT mice), (ii) unmanipulated female mice were compared to ovariectomized mice (IgG2b/IgA was higher in unmanipulated animals), (iii) female mice were supplemented with estrogen in the context of an inflammatory insult (IgG2b and IgG2b/IgG3 were improved by estrogen supplementation), and (iv) male mice were supplemented with testosterone, a hormone that can convert to estrogen in vivo (IgG2b, IgG2b/IgG3, IgG2b/IgG1, and IgG2b/IgA were all improved by supplementation). We next examined data from three sets of previously described male and female human blood samples. In each case, there were higher IgG2 levels, and/or ratios of IgG2 with non-IgM isotypes, in human females compared to males. The effects of sex and sex hormones in the mouse and human studies were subtle, but frequent, suggesting that sex hormones represent only a fraction of the factors that influence isotype patterns. Examination of the gene loci suggested that upregulation of murine IgG2b or human IgG2 could be mediated by estrogen receptor binding to estrogen response elements and cytosine-adenine (CA) repeats upstream of respective Cγ genes. Given that murine IgG2b and human IgG2 lend to virus control, the isotype biases in females may be sufficient to improve outcomes following vaccination or infection. Future attention to sex hormone levels, and consequent immunoglobulin isotype patterns, in clinical trials are encouraged to support the optimization of vaccine and drug products for male and female hosts.

Genetically predicted high IGF-1 levels showed protective effects on COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization: a Mendelian randomisation study with data from 60 studies across 25 countries.

Background: Epidemiological studies observed gender differences in COVID-19 outcomes, however, whether sex hormone plays a causal in COVID-19 risk remains unclear. This study aimed to examine associations of sex hormone, sex hormones-binding globulin (SHBG), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and COVID-19 risk. Methods: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (TSMR) study was performed to explore the causal associations between testosterone, estrogen, SHBG, IGF-1, and the risk of COVID-19 (susceptibility, hospitalization, and severity) using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary level data from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (N=1,348,701). Random-effects inverse variance weighted (IVW) MR approach was used as the primary MR method and the weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) test were conducted as sensitivity analyses. Results: Higher genetically predicted IGF-1 levels have nominally significant association with reduced risk of COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization. For one standard deviation increase in genetically predicted IGF-1 levels, the odds ratio was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.97, p=0.027) for COVID-19 susceptibility, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.25-0.51, p=0.018) for COVID-19 hospitalization, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.52-1.38, p=0.513) for COVID-19 severity. There was no evidence that testosterone, estrogen, and SHBG are associated with the risk of COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and severity in either overall or sex-stratified TSMR analysis. Conclusions: Our study indicated that genetically predicted high IGF-1 levels were associated with decrease the risk of COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization, but these associations did not survive the Bonferroni correction of multiple testing. Further studies are needed to validate the findings and explore whether IGF-1 could be a potential intervention target to reduce COVID-19 risk. Funding: We acknowledge support from NSFC (LR22H260001), CRUK (C31250/A22804), SHLF (Hjärt-Lungfonden, 20210351), VR (Vetenskapsrådet, 2019-00977), and SCI (Cancerfonden).

Sex hormones and immune system: Menopausal hormone therapy in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

The fatal outcomes of COVID-19 are related to the high reactivity of the innate wing of immunity. Estrogens could exert anti-inflammatory effects during SARS-CoV-2 infection at different stages: from increasing the antiviral resistance of individual cells to counteracting the pro-inflammatory cytokine production. A complex relationship between sex hormones and immune system implies that menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has pleiotropic effects on immunity in peri- and postmenopausal patients. The definite immunological benefits of perimenopausal MHT confirm the important role of estrogens in regulation of immune functionalities. In this review, we attempt to explore how sex hormones and MHT affect immunological parameters of the organism at different level (in vitro, in vivo) and what mechanisms are involved in their protective response to the new coronavirus infection. The correlation of sex steroid levels with severity and lethality of the disease indicates the potential of using hormone therapy to modulate the immune response and increase the resilience to adverse outcomes. The overall success of MHT is based on decades of experience in clinical trials. According to the current standards, MHT should not be discontinued in COVID-19 with the exception of critical cases.

Effects of growth hormone/estrogen/androgen on COVID-19-type proinflammatory responses in normal human lung epithelial BEAS-2B cells.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which can cause mild to serious infections in humans. We aimed to explore the effect of growth hormone (GH)/estrogen/androgen in normal human lung epithelial BEAS-2B cells on COVID-19-type proinflammatory responses. METHODS: A BEAS-2B COVID-19-like proinflammatory cell model was constructed. After that, the cells were treated with GH, 17ß-estradiol (E2), and testosterone (Tes) for 24 h. CCK-8 assays were utilized to evaluate cell viability. The mRNA expression of ACE2, AGTR1, TMRRSS2, and ISG15 and the protein expression of ACE2, AGTR1, TMRRSS2, and ISG15 were measured by qRT‒PCR and Western blotting, respectively. ELISAs were performed to determine IL-6, MCP-1, MDA and SOD expression. Flow cytometry was used to measure ROS levels. Finally, MAPK/NF-κB pathway-related factor expression was evaluated. RESULTS: The COVID-19-type proinflammatory model was successfully constructed, and 1000 ng/mL RBD treatment for 24 h was selected as the condition for the model group for subsequent experiments. After RBD treatment, cell viability decreased, the mRNA expression of ACE2, AGTR1, TMRRSS2, and ISG15 and the protein expression of ACE2, AGTR1, TMRRSS2, and ISG15 increased, IL-6, MCP-1, MDA and ROS levels increased, and MDA levels decreased. The mRNA levels of MAPK14 and RELA increased, but the protein levels did not change significantly. In addition, phospho-MAPK14 and phospho-RELA protein levels were also increased. Among the tested molecules, E2 had the most pronounced effect, followed by GH, while Tes showed the opposite effect. CONCLUSION: GH/E2 alleviated inflammation in a COVID-19-type proinflammatory model, but Tes showed the opposite effect.

Sex Steroids Effects on Asthma: A Network Perspective of Immune and Airway Cells.

A multitude of evidence has suggested the differential incidence, prevalence and severity of asthma between males and females. A compilation of recent literature recognized sex differences as a significant non-modifiable risk factor in asthma pathogenesis. Understanding the cellular and mechanistic basis of sex differences remains complex and the pivotal point of this ever elusive quest, which remains to be clarified in the current scenario. Sex steroids are an integral part of human development and evolution while also playing a critical role in the conditioning of the immune system and thereby influencing the function of peripheral organs. Classical perspectives suggest a pre-defined effect of sex steroids, generalizing estrogens popularly under the "estrogen paradox" due to conflicting reports associating estrogen with a pro- and anti-inflammatory role. On the other hand, androgens are classified as "anti-inflammatory," serving a protective role in mitigating inflammation. Although considered mainstream and simplistic, this observation remains valid for numerous reasons, as elaborated in the current review. Women appear immune-favored with stronger and more responsive immune elements than men. However, the remarkable female predominance of diverse autoimmune and allergic diseases contradicts this observation suggesting that hormonal differences between the sexes might modulate the normal and dysfunctional regulation of the immune system. This review illustrates the potential relationship between key elements of the immune cell system and their interplay with sex steroids, relevant to structural cells in the pathophysiology of asthma and many other lung diseases. Here, we discuss established and emerging paradigms in the clarification of observed sex differences in asthma in the context of the immune system, which will deepen our understanding of asthma etiopathology.

Overexpression of estrogen receptor GPER1 and G1 treatment reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection in BEAS-2B bronchial cells.

Gender-bias in COVID-19 severity has been suggested by clinical data. Experimental data in cell and animal models have demonstrated the role of sex hormones, particularly estrogens, in viral infections such as in COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 as a receptor to recognize host cells, and the protease TMPRSS2 for priming the Spike protein, facilitating virus entry into cells. However, the involvement of estrogenic receptors in SARS-CoV-2 infection are still being explored. Thus, in order to investigate the role of estrogen and its receptors in COVID-19, the estrogen receptors ERα, ERß and GPER1 were overexpressed in bronchial BEAS-2B cell, and then infected with SARS-CoV-2. Interestingly, the levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 mRNA were higher in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, but no difference was observed in cells with estrogen receptors overexpression. GPER1 can be involved in virus infection or replication, since its higher levels reduces SARS-CoV-2 load. On the other hand, pharmacological antagonism of GPER1 enhanced viral load. Those data suggest that GPER1 has an important role in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Bone, Brain, Heart study protocol: A resilient nested, tripartite prospective cohort study of the role of estrogen depletion on HIV pathology.

PURPOSE: We describe the rationale for and design of an innovative, nested, tripartite prospective observational cohort study examining whether relative estrogen insufficiency-induced inflammation amplifies HIV-induced inflammation to cause end organ damage and worsen age-related co-morbidities affecting the neuro-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (Brain), skeletal (Bone), and cardiovascular (Heart/vessels) organ systems (BBH Study). METHODS: The BBH parent study is the Multicenter AIDS Cohort/Women's Interagency HIV Study Combined Cohort Study (MWCCS) with participants drawn from the Atlanta MWCCS site. BBH will enroll a single cohort of n = 120 women living with HIV and n = 60 HIV-negative women, equally distributed by menopausal status. The innovative multipart nested study design of BBH, which draws on data collected by the parent study, efficiently leverages resources for maximum research impact and requires extensive oversight and management in addition to careful implementation. The presence of strong infrastructure minimized BBH study disruptions due to changes in the parent study and the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: BBH is poised to provide insight into sex and HIV associations with the neuro-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, skeletal, and cardiovascular systems despite several major, unexpected challenges.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of vaginal estrogen on postpartum atrophy, perineal pain, and sexual function.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vulvovaginal symptoms following perineal laceration may be worsened by atrophy related to decreased estrogen. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of local estrogen therapy in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of local estradiol in primiparous women with a second-degree or greater perineal laceration following a term vaginal delivery. Participants were randomized to twice weekly estradiol or placebo cream from delivery through 3 months postpartum. The primary outcome was a validated measure of vulvovaginal symptoms at 12 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes included measures of perineal pain, quality of life, sexual function, ease of use, likelihood of continued use, and adverse events. RESULTS: We planned to enroll 70 women; however, due to human subjects research restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment was stopped early. A total of 59 women were randomized, 31 to the estradiol group and 28 to the placebo group. Nearly all participants (95%) were followed through 12 weeks with suggestion of marginal improvement in Vulvar Assessment Scale scores [-0.10; 90% CI = (-0.20, 0.01)] in those randomized to estradiol compared to placebo. Local estradiol was not associated with improvement in other measures, and only one non-serious adverse event was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In primiparous women with a perineal laceration, use of local estradiol showed minimal clinical benefit in vulvovaginal atrophy and related symptoms but appears to be acceptable and safe for postpartum use. Larger adequately powered trials enrolling a diverse group of postpartum women are needed to affirm these findings.

Characteristics of hair loss after COVID-19: A systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: While there are literature reporting increased incidence of hair loss in COVID-19 patients, insufficient evidence exists on the topic to date. This review aims to identify the existing evidence and clinical characteristics of hair loss with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for all peer-reviewed articles with relevant keywords including "Alopecia," "Telogen Effluvium (TE)," and "COVID-19" from their inception to November 20, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 26 articles, with 9 observational studies and 17 case reports or series (a total of 58 cases), were included. Most studies dealt with TE. There were no clear trends between COVID-19 severity and the extent of hair loss. Analysis of the 58 cases also found similar results with most of the cases being female (82.8%), the median onset of hair loss of 2.0 months, and the median time to recovery of hair loss of 5.0 months with a resolution rate of 95%. CONCLUSION: While this systematic review revealed uncertainty and a lack of strong evidence regarding the association of COVID-19 and hair loss, hair loss in COVID-19 may mainly include TE and be reversible in nature. Future studies are warranted to determine the detailed pathophysiology and risk factors of hair loss in COVID-19, including possible roles of estrogen, progesterone, and pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Estrogen hormone is an essential sex factor inhibiting inflammation and immune response in COVID-19.

Although vaccines have been evaluated and approved for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention, there remains a lack of effective treatments to reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients already infected with SARS-CoV-2. The global data on COVID-19 showed that men have a higher mortality rate than women. We further observed that the proportion of mortality of females increases starting from around the age of 55 significantly. Thus, sex is an essential factor associated with COVID-19 mortality, and sex related genetic factors could be interesting mechanisms and targets for COVID-19 treatment. However, the associated sex factors and signaling pathways remain unclear. Here, we propose to uncover the potential sex associated factors using systematic and integrative network analysis. The unique results indicated that estrogens, e.g., estrone and estriol, (1) interacting with ESR1/2 receptors, (2) can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 caused inflammation and immune response signaling in host cells; and (3) estrogens are associated with the distinct fatality rates between male and female COVID-19 patients. Specifically, a high level of estradiol protects young female COVID-19 patients, and estrogens drop to an extremely low level in females after about 55 years of age causing the increased fatality rate of women. In conclusion, estrogen, interacting with ESR1/2 receptors, is an essential sex factor that protects COVID-19 patients from death by inhibiting inflammation and immune response caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, medications boosting the down-stream signaling of ESR1/ESR2, or inhibiting the inflammation and immune-associated targets on the signaling network can be potentially effective or synergistic combined with other existing drugs for COVID-19 treatment.

Melatonin and multiple sclerosis: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulator mechanism of action.

BACKGROUND: Melatonin is an indole hormone secreted primarily by the pineal gland that showing anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic capacity. It can play an important role in the pathophysiological mechanisms of various diseases. In this regard, different studies have shown that there is a relationship between Melatonin and Multiple Sclerosis (MS). MS is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the Central Nervous System. AIM: The objective of this review was to evaluate the mechanisms of action of melatonin on oxidative stress, inflammation and intestinal dysbiosis caused by MS, as well as its interaction with different hormones and factors that can influence the pathophysiology of the disease. RESULTS: Melatonin causes a significant increase in the levels of catalase, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione and can counteract and inhibit the effects of the NLRP3 inflammasome, which would also be beneficial during SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, melatonin increases antimicrobial peptides, especially Reg3ß, which could be useful in controlling the microbiota. CONCLUSION: Melatonin could exert a beneficial effect in people suffering from MS, running as a promising candidate for the treatment of this disease. However, more research in human is needed to help understand the possible interaction between melatonin and certain sex hormones, such as estrogens, to know the potential therapeutic efficacy in both men and women.

Estrogen and Estrogen Receptor Modulators: Potential Therapeutic Strategies for COVID-19 and Breast Cancer.

Owing to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we need to pay a particular focus on the impact of coronavirus infection on breast cancer patients. Approximately 70% of breast cancer patients express estrogen receptor (ER), and intervention therapy for ER has been the primary treatment strategy to prevent the development and metastasis of breast cancer. Recent studies have suggested that selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are a potential therapeutic strategy for COVID-19. With its anti-ER and anti-viral combined functions, SERMs may be an effective treatment for COVID-19 in patients with breast cancer. In this review, we explore the latent effect of SERMs, especially tamoxifen, and the mechanism between ER and virus susceptibility.