Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother ; 8(2): 157-164, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1692232

ABSTRACT

AIM: Assessing the effect of statin therapy (ST) at hospital admission for COVID-19 on in-hospital mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective observational study. Patients taking statins were 11 years older and had significantly more comorbidities than patients who were not taking statins. A genetic matching (GM) procedure was performed prior to analysis of the mortality risk. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for the cause-specific hazard (CSH) function, and a competing-risks Fine and Gray (FG) model was also used to study the direct effects of statins on risk. Data from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed 2157 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients [1234 men, 923 women; age: 67 y/o (IQR 54-78)] admitted to the hospital were retrieved from the clinical records in anonymized manner. Three hundred and fifty-three deaths occurred. Five hundred and eighty-one patients were taking statins. Univariate test after GM showed a significantly lower mortality rate in patients on ST than the matched non-statin group (19.8% vs. 25.4%, χ2 with Yates continuity correction: P = 0.027). The mortality rate was even lower in patients (n = 336) who maintained their statin treatments during hospitalization compared with the GM non-statin group (17.4%; P = 0.045). The Cox model applied to the CSH function [HR = 0.58(CI: 0.39-0.89); P = 0.01] and the competing-risks FG model [HR = 0.60 (CI: 0.39-0.92); P = 0.02] suggest that statins are associated with reduced COVID-19-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A lower SARS-CoV-2 infection-related mortality was observed in patients treated with ST prior to hospitalization. Statin therapy should not be discontinued due to the global concern of the pandemic or in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Aged , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(6): e419-e426, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2020, and Nov 20, 2020, data were collected for 1090 patients (mean age 55·2 years [SD 16·4]); 734 (67%) were female and 356 (33%) were male. Of the 1090 patients, 137 (13%) developed severe COVID-19 and 89 (8%) died. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, severe disease was observed more frequently (effect size 3·26, 95% CI 1·66-6·40, p=0·0006) and the duration of hospital stay was markedly longer (0·62, 0·46-0·85, p=0·0024) in the 63 patients in the rituximab group than in the 1027 patients in the no rituximab group. 13 (21%) of 63 patients in the rituximab group died compared with 76 (7%) of 1027 patients in the no rituximab group, but the adjusted risk of death was not significantly increased in the rituximab group (effect size 1·32, 95% CI 0·55-3·19, p=0·53). INTERPRETATION: Rituximab therapy is associated with more severe COVID-19. Rituximab will have to be prescribed with particular caution in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. FUNDING: None.

3.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 17(9): e1293-e1302, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262530

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Monitoring, Physiologic , Neoplasms/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Pain Med ; 22(7): 1642-1650, 2021 07 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258791

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP) affects an increasing proportion of cancer patients, given improved survival, but it remains difficult to treat. There are no studies on an extended intravenous ketamine protocol and its synergies with common neuropathy treatments to treat CNP. This study aims to 1) evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an intravenous ketamine protocol to treat refractory CNP and 2) uncover synergies between ketamine and common neuropathy treatments. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective review of 57 patients and 192 infusions, with prospective follow-up on 14 enrolled patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. RESULTS: The etiologies of CNP were as follows: 13 from tumor compression, 25 with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, 13 from surgery, and 6 from radiation therapy. Overall, 42 of 57 patients (73.7%) were responders, and 71.8% of responders received >3 weeks of pain relief on their last infusion. Analysis of adjuvant treatments revealed that the combination of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and ketamine resulted in an increase in responders compared with nonresponders (P < 0.01). Adverse events occurred in 32 of 192 infusions (16.7%). All side effects self-resolved or resolved with intervention per the adverse events protocol. During the pandemic, all 14 currently enrolled patients did not receive ketamine infusions. Thirteen of the 14 patients returned to baseline pain, with 61.5% increasing medications. All experienced worsened function, mobility, mood, or anorexia. CONCLUSION: Intravenous ketamine may be a safe and effective adjuvant treatment for CNP, especially with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Larger, prospective studies are warranted and should explore parameters to help prognosticate response to ketamine infusions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ketamine , Neoplasms , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pain Management , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther ; 21(9): 1055-1066, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1221423

ABSTRACT

Background: Cancer patients are more vulnerable to Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and have a higher risk of adverse outcomes than the general population. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate whether anti-cancer therapies such as surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy will increase the severity and mortality of cancer patients with COVID-19.Methods: Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search time was from December 1, 2019 to January 23, 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3 statistical software.Results: A total of 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 5571 cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Meta-analysis showed that surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapy were not associated with disease severity or mortality (107/688, OR =1.30, 95% CI[0.79, 2.13], P =0.30; 1956/2674, OR =1.27, 95% CI [0.95, 1.69], P =0.10; 342/1455, OR =1.20, 95% CI [0.90, 1.61], P =0.21; 503/1378, OR =0.92, 95% CI [0.72, 1.19], P =0.54, respectively).Conclusion: In cancer patients with COVID-19, anti-cancer therapy had no adverse effect on disease severity or mortality. Further research is necessary to determine the complex interrelationship between anti-cancer therapy, particularly chemotherapy, and COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/methods , Molecular Targeted Therapy/adverse effects , Molecular Targeted Therapy/methods , Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasms/virology , Severity of Illness Index
6.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 22(5): e285-e293, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1218013

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To 1) analyze the short-term biochemical improvements and clinical outcomes following treatment of children with post-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 inflammatory syndrome (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children/pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) admitted to U.K. PICUs and 2) collate current treatment guidance from U.K. PICUs. DESIGN: Multicenter observational study. SETTING: Twenty-one U.K. PICUs. PATIENTS: Children (< 18 yr) admitted to U.K. PICUs between April 1, 2020, and May 10, 2020, fulfilling the U.K. case definition of pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Routinely collected, deidentified data were analyzed. Propensity score and linear mixed effects models were used to analyze the effect of steroids, IV immunoglobulin, and biologic agents on changes in C-reactive protein, platelet counts, and lymphocyte counts over the course of PICU stay. Treatment recommendations from U.K. clinical guidelines were analyzed. Over the 6-week study period, 59 of 78 children (76%) received IV immunoglobulin, 57 of 78 (73%) steroids, and 18 of 78 (24%) a biologic agent. We found no evidence of a difference in response in clinical markers of inflammation between patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children/pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 who were treated with IV immunoglobulin, steroids, or biologics, compared with those who were not. By the end of the study period, most patients had received immunomodulation. The 12 patients who did not receive any immunomodulators had similar decrease in inflammatory markers as those treated. Of the 14 guidelines analyzed, the use of IV immunoglobulin, steroids, and biologics was universally recommended. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any short-term benefit from any of the treatments, or treatment combinations, administered. Despite a lack of evidence, treatment guidelines for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children/pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 have become very similar in advising step-wise treatments. Retaining clinical equipoise regarding treatment will allow clinicians to enroll children in robust clinical trials to determine the optimal treatment for this novel important condition.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
7.
Nutrients ; 13(5)2021 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217109

ABSTRACT

Vitamin D, sunshine and UVB phototherapy were first reported in the early 1900s to control psoriasis, cure rickets and cure tuberculosis (TB). Vitamin D also controlled asthma and rheumatoid arthritis with intakes ranging from 60,000 to 600,000 International Units (IU)/day. In the 1980s, interest in treating psoriasis with vitamin D rekindled. Since 1985 four different oral forms of vitamin D (D2, D3, 1-hydroxyvitaminD3 (1(OH)D3) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitaminD3 (calcitriol)) and several topical formulations have been reported safe and effective treatments for psoriasis-as has UVB phototherapy and sunshine. In this review we show that many pre-treatment serum 25(OH)D concentrations fall within the current range of normal, while many post-treatment concentrations fall outside the upper limit of this normal (100 ng/mL). Yet, psoriasis patients showed significant clinical improvement without complications using these treatments. Current estimates of vitamin D sufficiency appear to underestimate serum 25(OH)D concentrations required for optimal health in psoriasis patients, while concentrations associated with adverse events appear to be much higher than current estimates of safe serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Based on these observations, the therapeutic index for vitamin D needs to be reexamined in the treatment of psoriasis and other diseases strongly linked to vitamin D deficiency, including COVID-19 infections, which may also improve safely with sufficient vitamin D intake or UVB exposure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psoriasis , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Sunlight , Ultraviolet Therapy , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Psoriasis/blood , Psoriasis/therapy , Vitamin D/blood , Vitamin D/therapeutic use
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(2): 209-220, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Length of Stay , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
9.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 10(4)2021 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1158943

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine-based regimens versus standard treatment in patients with the coronavirus disease admitted in 2019 to a hospital in Saudi Arabia. A comparative observational study, using routine hospital data, was carried out in a large tertiary care hospital in Al Baha, Saudi Arabia, providing care to patients with COVID-19 between April 2019 and August 2019. Patients were categorized into two groups: the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) group, treated with HCQ in a dose of 400 mg twice daily on the first day, followed by 200 mg twice daily; the non HCQ group, treated with other antiviral or antibacterial treatments according to protocols recommended by the Ministry of Health (MOH) at the time. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, need for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), time in ICU, and need for mechanical ventilation. Overall survival was also assessed. 568 patients who received HCQ (treatment group) were compared with 207 patients who did not receive HCQ (control group). HCQ did not improve mortality in the treated group (7.7% vs. 7.2%). There were no significant differences in terms of duration of hospitalization, need for and time in ICU, and need for mechanical ventilation among the groups. Our study provides further evidence that HCQ treatment does not reduce mortality rates, length of hospital stay, admission and time in ICU, and need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

10.
Kardiologiia ; 61(2): 28-39, 2021 Mar 02.
Article in Russian, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140846

ABSTRACT

Actuality One of the most widely discussed treatments for patients with COVID-19, especially at the beginning of the epidemy, was the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The first small non-randomized trials showed the ability of HCQ and its combination with azithromycin to accelerate the elimination of the virus and ease the acute phase of the disease. Later, large, randomized trials did not confirm it (RECOVERY, SOLIDARITY). This study is a case-control study in which we compared patients who received and did not receive HCQ.Material and Methods 103 patients (25 in the HCQ treatment group and 78 in the control group) with confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA was detected in 26 of 73 in the control group (35.6%) and in 10 of 25 (40%) in the HCQ group) and in the rest - a typical picture of viral pneumonia on multislice computed tomography [MSCT]) were included in the analysis. The severity of lung damage was limited to stages I-II, the CRP level should not exceed 60 mg/dL, and oxygen saturation in the air within 92-98%. We planned to analysis the duration of treatment of patients in the hospital, the days until the normalization of body temperature, the number of points according to the original SHOCS-COVID integral scale, and changes in its components (C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and the percentage of lung damage according to MSCT).Results Analysis for the whole group revealed a statistically significant increase in the time to normalization of body temperature from 4 to 7 days (by 3 days, p<0.001), and the duration of hospitalization from 9.4 to 11.8 days (by 2.4 days, p=0.002) when using HCQ in comparison with control. Given the incomplete balance of the groups, the main analysis included 46 patients who were matched by propensity score matching. The trend towards similar dynamics continued. HCQ treatment slowed down the time to normalization of body temperature by 1.8 days (p=0.074) and lengthened the hospitalization time by 2.1 days (p=0.042). The decrease in scores on the SHOCS -COVID scale was statistically significant in both groups, and there were no differences between them (delta - 3.00 (2.90) in the HCQ group and - 2.69 (1.55) in control, p=0.718). At the same time, in the control group, the CRP level returned to normal (4.06 mg/dl), and with the use of GC, it decreased but remained above the norm (6.21 mg/dl, p=0.05). Side effects requiring discontinuation of treatment were reported in 3 patients in the HCQ group and none in the control group.Conclusion We have not identified any positive properties of HCQ and its ability to influence the severity of COVID-19. This antimalarial agent slows down the normalization of the body's inflammatory response and lengthens the time spent in the hospital. HCQ should not be used in the treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , COVID-19/drug therapy , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
11.
Urol Oncol ; 39(4): 213-220, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-989360

ABSTRACT

As the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 related pandemic - Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged, decision making in the context of cancer treatment has become more complex. The apprehension of using drugs that could adversely affect infected patients, the risk of not using life-saving treatments and the complexities related to the type of cancer itself, all must be taken into consideration before proceeding with treatment. Data from large registries such as COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium, Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) and NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study will hopefully provide granularity on the outcomes of patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19. As these efforts are underway, this review aims to shed light on the management of patients with genitourinary malignancies being treated with systemic therapies while infected with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , China , Humans , Immunotherapy , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Int J Radiat Biol ; 97(3): 302-312, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977319

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: It seems that 2020 would be always remembered by the name of novel coronavirus (designated as SARS-CoV-2), which exerted its deteriorating effects on the health care, economy, education, and political relationships. In August 2020 more than eight hundred thousand patients lost their lives due to acute respiratory syndrome. In the limited list of therapeutic approaches, the effectiveness of low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) for curing inflammatory-related diseases have sparkled a light that probably this approach would bring promising advantages for COVID-19 patients. LD-RT owns its reputation from its ability to modulate the host inflammatory responses by blocking the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and hampering the activity of leukocytes. Moreover, the cost-effective and availability of this method allow it to be applied to a large number of patients, especially those who could not receive anti-IL-6 treatments in low-income countries. But enthusiasm for applying LD-RT for the treatment of COVID-19 patients has been muted yet. CONCLUSION: In this review, we take a look at LD-RT mechanisms of action in the treatment of nonmalignant diseases, and then through studying both the dark and bright sides of this approach, we provide a thorough discussion if LD-RT might be a promising therapeutic approach in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/radiotherapy , Radiation Dosage , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Humans , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiotherapy Dosage
13.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 584870, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-963101

ABSTRACT

Background: Statins have multiple protective effects on inflammation, immunity and coagulation, and may help alleviate pneumonia. However, there was no report focusing on the association of statin use with in-hospital outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the association between the use of statins and in-hospital outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this retrospective case series, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted at 2 hospitals in Wuhan, China, from March 12, 2020 to April 14, 2020 were analyzed. A 1:1 matched cohort was created by propensity score-matched analysis. Demographic data, laboratory findings, comorbidities, treatments and in-hospital outcomes were collected and compared between COVID-19 patients taking and not taking statins. Result: A total of 2,147 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. Of which, 250 patients were on statin therapy. The mortality was 2.4% (6/250) for patients taking statins while 3.7% (70/1,897) for those not taking statins. In the multivariate Cox model, after adjusting for age, gender, admitted hospital, comorbidities, in-hospital medications and blood lipids, the risk was lower for mortality (adjusted HR, 0.428; 95% CI, 0.169-0.907; P = 0.029), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (adjusted HR, 0.371; 95% CI, 0.180-0.772; P = 0.008) or intensive care unit (ICU) care (adjusted HR, 0.319; 95% CI, 0.270-0.945; P = 0.032) in the statin group vs. the non-statin group. After propensity score-matched analysis based on 18 potential confounders, a 1:1 matched cohort (206:206) was created. In the matched cohort, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the use of statins was associated with better survival (P = 0.025). In a Cox regression model, the use of statins was associated with lower risk of mortality (unadjusted HR, 0.254; 95% CI, 0.070-0.926; P = 0.038), development of ARDS (unadjusted HR, 0.240; 95% CI, 0.087-0.657; P = 0.006), and admission of ICU (unadjusted HR, 0.349; 95% CI, 0.150-0.813; P = 0.015). The results remained consistent when being adjusted for age, gender, total cholesterol, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, procalcitonin, and brain natriuretic peptide. The favorable outcomes in statin users remained statistically significant in the first sensitivity analysis with comorbid diabetes being excluded in matching and in the second sensitivity analysis with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease being added in matching. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, the use of statins in COVID-19 patients was associated with better clinical outcomes and is recommended to be continued in patients with COVID-19.

14.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 583897, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955297

ABSTRACT

Background: Anti-inflammatory therapies such as IL-6 inhibition have been proposed for COVID-19 in a vacuum of evidence-based treatment. However, abrogating the inflammatory response in infectious diseases may impair a desired host response and pre-dispose to secondary infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical record of critically ill COVID-19 patients during an 8-week span and compared the prevalence of secondary infection and outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Additionally, we included representative histopathologic post-mortem findings from several COVID-19 cases that underwent autopsy at our institution. Results: One hundred eleven patients were identified, of which 54 had received tocilizumab while 57 had not. Receiving tocilizumab was associated with a higher risk of secondary bacterial (48.1 vs. 28.1%; p = 0.029 and fungal (5.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.112) infections. Consistent with higher number of infections, patients who received tocilizumab had higher mortality (35.2 vs. 19.3%; p = 0.020). Seven cases underwent autopsy. In three cases who received tocilizumab, there was evidence of pneumonia on pathology. Of the four cases that had not been given tocilizumab, two showed evidence of aspiration pneumonia and two exhibited diffuse alveolar damage. Conclusions: Experimental therapies are currently being applied to COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Anti-inflammatory therapies such as anti-IL-6 therapy have the potential to impair viral clearance, pre-dispose to secondary infection, and cause harm. We seek to raise physician awareness of these issues and highlight the need to better understand the immune response in COVID-19.

15.
J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab ; 34(1): 103-107, 2021 Jan 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-947985

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: There has been a recent worldwide outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Most of the health system capacity has been directed to COVID-19 patients, and routine outpatient clinics have been suspended. Chronic disease patients, such as inherited metabolic disorders (IMD), have had trouble accessing healthcare services. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among patients with IMDs who were present for a follow-up at our clinic to address their problems during pandemic period. Our clinic's Instagram and Facebook accounts were used to invite the participants. Three reminders were given between May 1, 2020, and May 30, 2020. Survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statics. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients completed our survey. Incomplete surveys were excluded, and 175 questionnaires were evaluated. Most of patients had a special diet, and 51% of them had some difficulty with their diet. The reported rate of using a special treatment was 38%, and most of these patients (91%) had no problem receiving these special therapies during this time. Parents who were wearing masks while caring for their child were very few (17%), but a vast majority of parents (73.7%) had high handwashing rates. None of the patients had a SARS-COV2 infection until this paper was written. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that aims to determine the problems faced by patients with IMD during the COVID-19 period. Considering that the pandemic will not immediately pass, recognizing the problems faced by patients with chronic diseases and developing solutions would help these patients avoid long-term damage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Metabolic Diseases/physiopathology , Parents/education , Parents/psychology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/virology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Metabolic Diseases/genetics , Metabolic Diseases/prevention & control , Metabolic Diseases/psychology , Online Systems , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine , Turkey/epidemiology
16.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(1): 41-51, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-880237

ABSTRACT

Importance: Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Objective: To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Exposures: Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. Results: Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab-treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Early Medical Intervention , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Proportional Hazards Models , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
17.
Support Care Cancer ; 29(4): 1941-1950, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-718427

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: No information is available on cancer patients' knowledge of and experiences with COVID-19. We undertook an evaluation of differences in COVID-19 symptom occurrence rates, COVID-19 testing rates, clinical care activities, knowledge of COVID-19, and use of mitigation procedures between patients who were and were not receiving active cancer treatment. METHODS: Patients enrolled were > 18 years of age; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete the emailed study survey online. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients who participated, 27.6% (n = 48) were receiving active treatment, 13.6% were unemployed because of COVID-19, 12.2% had been tested for COVID-19, and 0.6% had been hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients who were not on active treatment reported a higher mean number of COVID-19 symptoms (3.1 (± 4.2) versus 1.9 (± 2.6)), and patients who reported a higher number of COVID-19 symptoms were more likely to be tested. Over 55% of the patients were confident that their primary care provider could diagnose COVID-19, and the majority of the patients had high levels of adherence with the use of precautionary measures (e.g., social distancing, use of face coverings). CONCLUSION: The high level of COVID-19 symptoms and the significant overlap of COVID-19 and cancer-related symptoms pose challenges for clinicians who are assessing and triaging oncology patients for COVID-19 testing. For patients on active treatment, clinicians face challenges with how to assess and manage symptoms that, prior to COVID-19, would be ascribed to acute toxicities associated with cancer treatments or persistent symptoms in cancer survivors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Neoplasms , Patients , Perception , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Educational Status , Female , Humans , Infection Control , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Patients/psychology , Patients/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology
18.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 32(4): 435-438, 2020 Apr.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-596083

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence for the effect of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin on treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and further provide advice on the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Clinical studies of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin in the treatment of SARS were collected from a variety of databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM from November 2002 to March 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias based on the national institute for health and clinical excellence case series quality scale, and systematically evaluated the results. RESULTS: A total of 10 clinical studies, including 212 patients, were eventually included. There were 4 case series studies, 5 case reports and 1 case-control study. Most studies were with low or very low quality. The systematic analysis showed that 107 patients administered convalescent plasma and 16 patients used immunoglobulin during the treatment of SARS. Forty-nine patients were definitely not treated with the above two methods, and the remaining 40 patients were not reported clearly. The treatment of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin could both improve the symptoms and reduce the mortality (12 died), and most SARS patients got better, while 11 SARS patients who did not receive the above therapies died. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin were effective on relieving symptoms of SARS patients. However, due to low quality and lacking of control group, convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin should be used with caution to treat COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Immunoglobulins , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Neurohospitalist ; 10(4): 291-292, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-378023

ABSTRACT

For decades, neurologists have been advocating that anyone with acute focal deficits report immediately to the closest hospital's emergency room. Major advancements in the hyperacute diagnosis and treatment of stroke have justified our call-to-action slogan of "Time is Brain"-faster therapy leads to superior outcomes. However, this mantra has been recently usurped by the catchphrase "Stay at Home" during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Fewer patients are presenting to hospitals with acute stroke; our census is down. Presumably the etiology of this phenomenon is either strict "social distancing" that some people may misperceive to exclude even emergent situations, or fears of contracting the virus while hospitalized. In this Short Report, we describe the year-over-year drop in stroke volume (ischemic and hemorrhagic both) coinciding with a paradoxical rise in acute reperfusion therapies at our university hospital. These data imply that stroke patients with mild/moderate symptoms are most likely staying home, and not receiving urgent therapies, and correspondingly, only the most severely disabled stroke patients are ultimately seeking and receiving help. We must remind our patients and the general public that our services are essential and available, as stroke still remains a medical emergency, and carries a likely higher overall mortality risk than COVID-19. As neurologists, we also must be vigilant for the atypical presentations and varied etiologies of stroke associated with COVID-19 as well.

20.
Cureus ; 12(5): e8190, 2020 May 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-349808

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented situation where the standard of care (SOC) management for cancers has been altered significantly. Patients with potentially curable cancers are at risk of not receiving timely SOC multidisciplinary treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or combination treatments. Hospital resources are in such high demand for COVID-19 patients that procedures, such as surgery, dentistry, interventional radiology, and other ancillary services, are not available for cancer patients. Our tertiary care center is considered the center of the epicenter in the USA. As a result, all non-emergent surgeries have been suspended in order to provide hospital beds and other resources for COVID-19 patients. Additionally, ambulatory efforts to avoid treatment-related morbidity are critical for keeping patients out of emergency departments and hospitals. In this review article, we discuss evidence-based radiation therapy approaches for curable cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We focus on three scenarios of cancer care: 1) radiation therapy as an alternative to surgery when immediate surgery is not possible, 2) radiation therapy as a 'bridge' to surgery, and 3) radiation options definitively or postoperatively, given the risk of hospitalization with high-dose chemotherapy.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL