Time-varying association of acute and post-acute COVID-19 with new-onset diabetes mellitus among hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown disruption of glycometabolic control and new diabetes mellitus (DM) diagnosis among patients with COVID-19. It is still unclear how the association of COVID-19 and new-onset DM may be modified by disease severity or vary over time, during acute and post-acute phases. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, 157 936 patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥25 years, diagnosis date between March 01, 2020 and August 31, 2021) were compared with individuals without COVID-19, separately for non-hospitalized, hospitalized, and severe hospitalized patients. Stratified Cox proportional hazards models, with changing baseline time (starting at the date of COVID-19 diagnosis, and at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months afterwards), were used to evaluate the occurrence of new DM in relation to COVID-19 infection in different time frames-from each landmark date until end of study. RESULTS: During mean follow-up time of 10.9 months, there were 1145 (0.72%) new diagnoses of DM compared with 1013 (0.64%) in the individuals without COVID-19 (p=0.004). Non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were not at higher risk of new DM neither during the acute phase nor afterward. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had a higher risk of developing DM, with the highest risk among severe hospitalized patients. This risk among hospitalized patients was highest in the acute phase (HR 2.47 (95% CI 1.86 to 3.29)), attenuated over time, but remained significant at 4-month landmark analysis (HR 1.60 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.29)). CONCLUSIONS: Acute and post-acute COVID-19 were associated with new DM only among hospitalized patients, with the highest risk among those hospitalized with severe disease. Those patients should be followed and monitored post-discharge for new DM. Patients who were not hospitalized did not have higher risk of new-onset DM.

Longitudinal kinetics of RBD+ antibodies in COVID-19 recovered patients over 14 months.

We describe the longitudinal kinetics of the serological response in COVID-19 recovered patients over a period of 14 months. The antibody kinetics in a cohort of 192 recovered patients, including 66 patients for whom follow-up serum samples were obtained at two to four clinic visits, revealed that RBD-specific antibodies decayed over the 14 months following the onset of symptoms. The decay rate was associated with the robustness of the response in that antibody levels that were initially highly elevated after the onset of symptoms subsequently decayed more rapidly. An exploration of the differences in the longitudinal kinetics between recovered patients and naïve vaccinees who had received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a significantly faster decay in the naïve vaccinees, indicating that serological memory following natural infection is more robust than that following to vaccination. Our data highlighting the differences between serological memory induced by natural infection vs. vaccination contributed to the decision-making process in Israel regarding the necessity for a third vaccination dose.

Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting.

BACKGROUND: With large waves of infection driven by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), alongside evidence of waning immunity after the booster dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine, several countries have begun giving at-risk persons a fourth vaccine dose. METHODS: To evaluate the early effectiveness of a fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine for the prevention of Covid-19-related outcomes, we analyzed data recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from January 3 to February 18, 2022. We evaluated the relative effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose as compared with that of a third dose given at least 4 months earlier among persons 60 years of age or older. We compared outcomes in persons who had received a fourth dose with those in persons who had not, individually matching persons from these two groups with respect to multiple sociodemographic and clinical variables. A sensitivity analysis was performed with the use of parametric Poisson regression. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 182,122 matched pairs. Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7 to 30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 47) against polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53 to 58) against symptomatic Covid-19, 68% (95% CI, 59 to 74) against Covid-19-related hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50 to 74) against severe Covid-19, and 74% (95% CI, 50 to 90) against Covid-19-related death. The corresponding estimates in days 14 to 30 after the fourth dose were 52% (95% CI, 49 to 54), 61% (95% CI, 58 to 64), 72% (95% CI, 63 to 79), 64% (95% CI, 48 to 77), and 76% (95% CI, 48 to 91). In days 7 to 30 after a fourth vaccine dose, the difference in the absolute risk (three doses vs. four doses) was 180.1 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 142.8 to 211.9) for Covid-19-related hospitalization and 68.8 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 48.5 to 91.9) for severe Covid-19. In sensitivity analyses, estimates of relative effectiveness against documented infection were similar to those in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was effective in reducing the short-term risk of Covid-19-related outcomes among persons who had received a third dose at least 4 months earlier. (Funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.).

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Linagliptin vs. Standard of Care in Patients Hospitalized With Diabetes and COVID-19

Objective To assess the effect of linagliptin vs. standard therapy in improving clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with diabetes and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Materials and Methods We did an open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in 3 Israeli hospitals between October 1, 2020, and April 4, 2021. Eligible patients were adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of COVID-19. A total of 64 patients, 32 in each group, were randomized to receive linagliptin 5 mg PO daily throughout the hospitalization or standard of care therapy. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization, defined as a 2-point reduction on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (discharged without disease) to 8 (death). Results The mean age was 67 ± 14 years, and most patients were male (59.4%). Median time to clinical improvement was 7 days (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5-15) in the linagliptin group compared with 8 days (IQR 3.5–28) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio, 1.22;95% CI, 0.70–2.15;p = 0.49). In-hospital mortality was 5 (15.6%) and 8 (25.0%) in the linagliptin and standard of care groups, respectively (odds ratio, 0.56;95% CI, 0.16–1.93). The trial was prematurely terminated due to the control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Israel. Conclusions In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with diabetes and COVID-19 who received linagliptin, there was no difference in the time to clinical improvement compared with the standard of care. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04371978.

The management of type 2 diabetes before, during and after Covid-19 infection: what is the evidence?

Patients with Covid-19 place new challenges on the management of type 2 diabetes, including the questions of whether glucose-lowering therapy should be adjusted during infection and how to manage a return to normal care after resolution of Covid-19 symptoms. Due to the sudden onset of the pandemic, physicians have by necessity made such important clinical decisions in the absence of robust evidence or consistent guidelines. The risk to patients is compounded by the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in this population, which alongside diabetes is a major risk factor for severe disease and mortality in Covid-19. We convened as experts from the Central and Eastern European region to consider what advice we can provide in the setting of type 2 diabetes and Covid-19, considering the evidence before, during and after infection. We review recommendations that have been published to date, and consider the best available-but currently limited-evidence from large observational studies and the DARE-19 randomized control trial. Notably, we find a lack of guidance on restarting patients on optimal antidiabetic therapy after recovering from Covid-19, and suggest that this may provide an opportunity to optimize treatment and counter clinical inertia that predates the pandemic. Furthermore, we emphasize that optimization applies not only to glycaemic control, but other factors such as cardiorenal protection. While we look forward to the emergence of new evidence that we hope will address these gaps, in the interim we provide a perspective, based on our collective clinical experience, on how best to manage glucose-lowering therapy as patients with Covid-19 recover from their disease and return to normal care.

BMI and pneumonia outcomes in critically ill covid-19 patients: An international multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have unveiled a relationship between the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and obesity. The aims of this multicenter retrospective cohort study were to disentangle the association of BMI and associated metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking status) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted to intensive care units for COVID-19 in 21 centers (in Europe, Israel, and the United States) were enrolled in this study between February 19, 2020, and May 19, 2020. Primary and secondary outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 28-day mortality, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,461 patients were enrolled; the median (interquartile range) age was 64 years (40.9-72.0); 73.2% of patients were male; the median BMI was 28.1 kg/m2 (25.4-32.3); a total of 1,080 patients (73.9%) required IMV; and the 28-day mortality estimate was 36.1% (95% CI: 33.0-39.5). An adjusted mixed logistic regression model showed a significant linear relationship between BMI and IMV: odds ratio = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.12-1.45) per 5 kg/m2 . An adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model showed a significant association between BMI and mortality, which was increased only in obesity class III (≥40; hazard ratio = 1.68 [95% CI: 1.06-2.64]). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, a linear association between BMI and the need for IMV, independent of other metabolic risk factors, and a nonlinear association between BMI and mortality risk were observed.

Surfactant for the Treatment of ARDS in a Patient With COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 report severe respiratory symptoms consistent with ARDS. The clinical presentation of ARDS in COVID-19 is often atypical, as patients with COVID-19 exhibit a disproportionate hypoxemia compared with relatively preserved lung mechanics. This pattern is more similar to neonatal respiratory distress syndrome secondary to surfactant deficiency, which has been shown to benefit from exogenous surfactant. We present our experience with exogenous surfactant treatment in a patient with COVID-19 experiencing COVID-19-related ARDS. The patient responded with improved oxygenation, and we believe surfactant was the catalyst for the successful extubation and clinical improvement of the patient.

Development and validation of a knowledge-driven risk calculator for critical illness in COVID-19 patients.

Facing the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, evidence to inform decision-making at all care levels is essential. Based on the results of a study by Petrilli et al., we have developed a calculator using patient data at admission to predict critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, hospice care, or death). We report a retrospective validation of the calculator on 145 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to a single hospital in Israel. Despite considerable differences between the original and validation study populations, of 18 patients with critical illness, 17 were correctly identified (sensitivity: 94.4%, 95% CI, 72.7%-99.9%; specificity: 81.9%, 95% CI, 74.1%-88.2%). Of 127 patients with non-critical illness, 104 were correctly identified. Our results indicate that published knowledge can be reliably applied to assess patient risk, potentially reducing the cognitive burden on physicians, and helping policymakers better prepare for future needs.

A Time Frame for Testing Negative for SARS-COV2 in People with Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity is a major risk factor for becoming seriously ill with the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). One difficulty faced by clinicians and by patients is the unknown time frame of hospitalization until discharge of symptomatic patients. METHODS: We followed 34 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection who recovered fromthe infection. All diagnoses were given using semi-quantitative RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Envelope protein gene (E), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (RdRP), and nucleocapsid gene (N) were measured by RT-PCR. Weight was measured and height was self-reported. RESULTS: Mean ± SD age was 51.8 ± 16.7 years. Mean ± SD body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2. 26% (9/34) had obesity, with BMI above 30 kg/m2. Fifteen patients had BMI between 25 and 29.9 kg/m2. The mean length of hospital stay was longer for those with a BMI >25 kg/m2 (n = 24) than for those with a normal BMI (19.2 vs. 16.0 days, p = 0.08). Comparing people with obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2 or above) to those without obesity, the difference was larger (20.6 vs. 16.0 days, p = 0.06). A trend for correlation between body weight and the time to negative detection of RdRp gene was found (r = 0.33, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for priority of early detection and testing, and early therapy for people with obesity and COVID-19 infections.

Compassionate use of convalescent plasma for treatment of moderate and severe pneumonia in COVID-19 patients and association with IgG antibody levels in donated plasma.

BACKGROUND: We assessed outcome of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 following treatment with convalescent plasma (CP) and the association with IgG levels in transfused CP. METHODS: A prospective cohort study. Primary outcome was improvement at day 14 defined as alive, not on mechanical ventilation, and moderate, mild, or recovered from COVID-19. Antibody levels in CP units were unknown at the time of treatment. IgG against the spike protein S1 was subsequently measured by ELISA. Neutralizing antibodies titers were determined in a subset. Outcome was assessed in relation to the mean antibody level transfused to the patients (≤4.0 versus >4.0). FINDINGS: Of 49 patients, 11 (22.4%) had moderate, 38 (77.6%) had severe disease, 28 were ventilated. At day 14, 24 (49.0%) patients improved, 9 (18.4%) died, and 13 (26.5%) were ventilated. In 14/98 (14.3%) CP units IgG was < 1.1 (cutoff calibration) and in 60 (61.2%) ≤4.0. IgG level and neutralizing antibody titer were correlated (0.85 p < 0.001). In patients receiving ≤4.0 antibody levels, 11/30 improved (36.7%) versus 13/19 (68.4%) in patients receiving >4.0 odds ratio (OR) 0.267 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.079-0.905], P = 0.030. In patients diagnosed >10 days prior to treatment, 4/14 (22.4%) improved in the ≤4.0 antibody group, versus 6/7 (85.7%) in the >4.0 antibody group, OR 0.048 (95% CI, 0.004-0.520), P = 0.007. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with CP with higher levels of IgG against S1 may benefit patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. IgG against S1 level in CP predicts neutralization antibodies titers.

Treatment of COVID-19 Patients Post-Bariatric Surgery: Issues for Consideration.

As COVID-19 has been expanding rapidly around the world, the types of patients and their backgrounds vary. The substantially altered GI anatomy/physiology after bariatric surgery presents new challenges to the field of oral drug therapy. In this report we highlight issues for consideration when treating COVID-19 patients who previously underwent bariatric surgery and provide practical tools to allow optimal care of these patients. Post-bariatric absorption/pharmacokinetic changes may warrant dose adjustment, as well as the use of liquid oral dosage forms or parenteral routes of administration, if available. Realizing the potentially altered pharmacokinetics of various drugs after bariatric surgery is essential for providing optimal pharmacological therapy and overall patient care.

Obesity and COVID-19: A Perspective from the European Association for the Study of Obesity on Immunological Perturbations, Therapeutic Challenges, and Opportunities in Obesity.

Accumulating evidence suggests that obesity is a major risk factor for the initiation, progression, and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), as a scientific and medical society dedicated to the promotion of health and well-being, is greatly concerned about the concomitant obesity and COVID-19 pandemics and their impact on health and society at large. In this perspective, we will address the inherent immunological perturbations and alterations in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with obesity and COVID-19, and discuss how these impairments may underlie the increased susceptibility and more detrimental outcomes of COVID-19 in people with obesity. Clearly, this has important implications for preventive measures, vaccination, and future therapeutic strategies to combat COVID-19. Furthermore, we will highlight important knowledge gaps and provide suggestions for future research and recommendations for policy actions. Since many new reports on COVID-19 rapidly appear, the present perspective should be seen as a focus for discussion to drive forward further understanding, research initiatives, and clinical management of COVID-19.

Obesity and COVID-19: The Two Sides of the Coin.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19, the infectious disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a pandemic on March 12, 2020. COVID-19 is causing massive health problems and economic suffering around the world. The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) promptly recognised the impact that the outbreak could have on people with obesity. On one side, emerging data suggest that obesity represents a risk factor for a more serious and complicated course of COVID-19 in adults. On the other side, the health emergency caused by the outbreak diverts attention from the prevention and care of non-communicable chronic diseases to communicable diseases. This might be particularly true for obesity, a chronic and relapsing disease frequently neglected and linked to significant bias and stigmatization. The Obesity Management Task Force (OMTF) of EASO contributes in this paper to highlighting the key aspects of these two sides of the coin and suggests some specific actions.