Excess of cesarean births in pregnant women with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that cesarean birth in pregnant women with COVID-19 may decrease maternal adverse events and perinatal transmission. This systematic review aimed to evaluate variations in clinical presentation, laboratory findings, and maternal/neonatal outcomes in COVID-19 patients who delivered vaginally versus via cesarean. METHODS: A comprehensive search following PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies published up to May 23, 2020, using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Science Direct, and clinicaltrials.gov. Original retrospective and prospective studies, case reports, or case series with sufficient data for estimating the association of COVID-19 with different pregnancy outcomes with no language restriction and published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Pooled mean and arcsine transformation proportions were applied. Next, a two-arm meta-analysis was performed comparing the perinatal outcomes between the study groups. RESULTS: Forty-two studies with a total of 602 pregnant women with COVID-19 were included. The mean age was 31.8 years. Subgroup analysis showed that Americans had the lowest gestational age (mean = 32.7, 95%CI = 27.0-38.4, P < 0.001) and the highest incidence of maternal ICU admission (95%CI = 0.45%-2.20, P < 0.001) of all nationalities in the study. There was no significant difference in perinatal complications, premature rupture of membrane, placenta previa/accreta, or gestational hypertension/pre-eclampsia between women who delivered vaginally versus by cesarean. Importantly, there were also no significant differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Vaginal delivery was not associated with worse maternal or neonatal outcomes when compared with cesarean. The decision to pursue a cesarean birth should be based on standard indications, not COVID-19 status.

Altered mental status is a predictor of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have described typical clinical manifestations, including fever, cough, diarrhea, and fatigue with COVID-19 infection. However, there are limited data on the association between the presence of neurological manifestations on hospital admission, disease severity, and outcomes. We sought to investigate this correlation to help understand the disease burden. METHODS: We delivered a multi-center retrospective study of positive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Clinical presentation, laboratory values, complications, and outcomes data were reported. Our findings of interest were Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients with a mean age of 60.83 ± 15.5 years, of them 71 patients (14.14%) presented with altered mental status, these patients showed higher odds of ICU admission (OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.18 to 3.59, p = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (OR = 3.28, 95%CI = 1.86 to 5.78, p < 0.001), prolonged (>4 days) mechanical ventilation (OR = 4.35, 95%CI = 1.89 to 10, p = 0.001), acute kidney injury (OR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.28 to 3.74, p = 0.004), and mortality (HR = 2.82, 95%CI = 1.49 to 5.29, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This cohort study found that neurological presentations are associated with higher odds of adverse events. When examining patients with neurological manifestations, clinicians should suspect COVID-19 to avoid delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis and lose the chance to treat and prevent further transmission.

Annual flu shot: Does it help patients with COVID-19?

AIM OF THE STUDY: The impact of annual flu vaccination on the patients' clinical course with COVID-19 and the outcome were tested. METHODS: A total of 149 patients with COVID-19-positive admitted from March 20 to May 10, 2020, were retrospectively enrolled. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (65.8%) patients received at least a single annual flu shot in the last year, and fifty-one (34.2%) were never vaccinated. On presentation, vaccinated patients were more likely to present with gastrointestinal symptoms (P < .05). There were no significant differences between study groups in laboratory findings or clinical outcomes. In multivariate analysis, receiving the annual shot did not influence risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.50-2.72, P = .72), intubation (OR = 1.40, 95%CI = 0.60-3.23, P = .43), complications (OR = 1.08, 95%CI = 0.52-2.26, P = .83) or mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 0.31-5.29, P = .73). CONCLUSION: Although the benefits of the influenza vaccine for preventing disease and reducing morbidity in influenza patients are well established, no differences in outcomes for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who received their annual influenza vaccination versus the non-vaccinated cohort were evident. There is a need for future meta-analyses, including randomised controlled studies in which the number of cases is increased to validate these findings.

Cancer and COVID-19: analysis of patient outcomes.

Background: We sought to investigate the outcomes associated with COVID-19 disease in cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Results: Of the 206 patients included, 57 had at least one preexisting malignancy. Cancer patients were older than noncancer patients. Of the 185 discharged cases, cancer patients had a significantly higher frequency of unplanned reintubation (7.1% vs 0.9%, p < 0.049), and required longer hospital stay (8.58 ± 6.50 days versus 12.83 ± 11.44 days, p < 0.002). Regression analysis revealed that obesity and active smoking were associated with an increased risk of mortality. Conclusion: Outcomes in COVID-19 appear to be driven by obesity as well as active smoking, with no difference in mortality between cancer and noncancer patients.

In this study, we aimed to investigate how COVID-19 affected cancer patients and whether this altered their survival outcomes. To do this, we examined data from a database of patients who have passed through our institution ­ a retrospective cohort analysis. Of the 206 patients we included in the study from this database, 57 had at least one preexisting cancer. Cancer patients tended to be older than noncancer patients. Of the 185 discharged patients, cancer patients required longer hospital stays, but there was no difference in mortality. Disease complications and intensive care unit admission with obesity and active smoking put patients in our cohort at increased risk of death. To conclude, outcomes in COVID-19 patients appear to be driven by obesity as well as active smoking, with no difference in mortality between cancer and noncancer patients.

Vitamin D insufficiency as a potential culprit in critical COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: As an immune modulator, vitamin D has been implicated in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcome. We aim to systematically explore the association of vitamin D serum levels with COVID-19 severity and prognosis. METHODS: The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to estimate pooled results from six studies. The prognostic performance of vitamin D serum levels for predicting adverse outcomes with detection of the best cutoff threshold was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision tree analysis by combining vitamin D levels and clinical features was applied to predict severity in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Mean vitamin D serum level of 376 patients, was 21.9 nmol/L (95% CI = 15.36-28.45). Significant heterogeneity was found (I2 = 99.1%, p < .001). Patients with poor prognosis (N = 150) had significantly lower serum levels of vitamin D compared with those with good prognosis (N = 161), representing an adjusted standardized mean difference of -0.58 (95% Cl = -0.83 to -0.34, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Serum vitamin D levels could be implicated in the COVID-19 prognosis. Diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency could be a helpful adjunct in assessing patients' potential of developing severe COVID-19. Appropriate preventative and/or therapeutic intervention may improve COVID-19 outcomes.

Gastroenterology manifestations and COVID-19 outcomes: A meta-analysis of 25,252 cohorts among the first and second waves.

A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.

Multicentre randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: A novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4-7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: National Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408).

African Americans Struggle With the Current COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to explore the differential impact of this pandemic on clinical presentations and outcomes in African Americans (AAs) compared to white patients. BACKGROUND: AAs have worse outcomes compared to whites while facing heart diseases, stroke, cancer, asthma, influenza and pneumonia, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. However, there is no current study to show the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the AA communities. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 2 tertiary centers in New Orleans, LA. Clinical and laboratory data were collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors associated with adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were identified. Of these, 134 (77%) were AAs, whereas 23.4% of patients were Whites. Interestingly, AA were younger, with a mean age of 63 ± 13.4 compared to 75.7 ± 23 years in Whites (P < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients presented with no insurance, and 34 of them were AA. SOFA Score was significantly higher in AA (2.57 ± 2.1) compared to White patients (1.69 ± 1.7), P = 0.041. Elevated SOFA score was associated with higher odds for intubation (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.32-1.93, P < 0.001). AA had more prolonged length of hospital stays (11.1 ± 13.4 days vs 7.7 ± 23 days) than in Whites, P = 0.01. CONCLUSION: AAs present with more advanced disease and eventually have worse outcomes from COVID-19 infection. Future studies are warranted for further investigations that should impact the need for providing additional resources to the AA communities.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatric COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically review the clinical and laboratory features of patients with the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatrics diagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA SOURCES: A literature search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct was made up to June 29, 2020. RESULTS: Analysis of 15 articles (318 COVID-19 patients) revealed that although many patients presented with the typical multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatrics, Kawasaki-like features as fever (82.4%), polymorphous maculopapular exanthema (63.7%), oral mucosal changes (58.1%), conjunctival injections (56.0%), edematous extremities (40.7%), and cervical lymphadenopathy (28.5%), atypical gastrointestinal (79.4%) and neurocognitive symptoms (31.8%) were also common. They had elevated serum lactic acid dehydrogenase, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, troponin I levels, and lymphopenia. Nearly 77.0% developed hypotension, and 68.1% went into shock, while 41.1% had acute kidney injury. Intensive care was needed in 73.7% of cases; 13.2% were intubated, and 37.9% required mechanical ventilation. Intravenous immunoglobulins and steroids were given in 87.7% and 56.9% of the patients, respectively, and anticoagulants were utilized in 67.0%. Pediatric patients were discharged after a hospital stay of 6.77 days on average (95% CI 4.93-8.6). CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the typical and atypical presentation of the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in pediatric COVID-19 patients has important implications in identifying children at risk. Monitoring cardiac and renal decompensation and early interventions in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome is critical to prevent further morbidity.

Meta-analysis on Serial Intervals and Reproductive Rates for SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze all literature reporting the basic reproductive number (R0), effective reproductive number (Re or Rt), and the serial interval (SI) values of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: To assess the rate at which an infectious disease can spread in a population, the 2 measures, R0 and Re or Rt, are widely used. One of the parameters which influence the calculations is the SI, the period between symptom onset in an infector and an infectee. METHODS: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct searching up to May 10, 2020, was performed. A continuous random-effect model was applied using the DerSimonian-Laird (inverse variance) method. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 39 articles met the eligibility criteria. Our results demonstrated the mean SI was 5.45 days, with the 95% confidence interval (CI) of 4.23 to 6.66. Pooled estimates for reproduction rates was 3.14 (95% CI: 2.69-3.59) for R0 and 3.18 (95% CI: 2.89-3.47) for Rt. Subgroup analysis by geographical region and date of publication revealed variations over both time and geography in calculated R0 and Rt values. As time has progressed, predicted R0 and Rt values had decreased globally. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that one SARS-CoV-2-infected person is likely to infect 3 persons, supporting that COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease. As an essential objective metrics implied in risk assessment for this emerging pandemic, monitoring R0 and Re is necessary to indicate the effectiveness or failures of mitigation efforts.

Asthma and COVID-19; different entities, same outcome: a meta-analysis of 107,983 patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are varying reports of the prevalence and effect of comorbid asthma in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis comparing asthmatic and non-asthmatic patients to determine the clinical significance of preexisting asthma in COVID-19 patients. DATA SOURCES: Online databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched up to July 15, 2020, for papers comparing asthma versus non-asthma COVID-19 patients. STUDY SELECTION: According to prespecified inclusion criteria, this analysis included eleven retrospective studies with 107,983 COVID-19 patients. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age groups. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59.9 years (95%CI = 51.9-67.9). Across studies, the prevalence of asthma was 11.2% (95%CI: 9.1%-13.3%) among COVID-19 patients who attended the hospitals. Asthma patients were more likely to be younger (SMD = -0.36, 95%CI = -0.61 to -0.10, p = 0.005), and obese (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.54-2.55, p < 0.001), there was no differential risk of hospitalization rate, ICU admission, or development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between asthmatic and non-asthmatic cohorts. However, asthmatic patients had increased risk of endotracheal intubation (RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.58, p = 0.030) especially patients aged <50 years (RR = 6.68, 95%CI = 1.76-11.13, p = 0.009). Despite this result, asthmatic patients had better recovery with a higher liability of being discharged and were less likely to die (RR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.65-0.97, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, our meta-analysis is the largest to shed light on preexisting asthma as a predictor of intubation in COVID-19, especially in young and obese patients. Identifying high-risk groups is crucial for designing more effective intervention plans and optimization of efficient resource allocation.

Time-varying Reproductive Rates for SARS-CoV-2 and its Implications as a Means of Disease Surveillance on Lockdown Restrictions.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the time-varying reproductive rates for SARS-CoV-2 and its implication in Louisiana. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Basic reproductive number (R0) and effective reproductive number (Re or Rt) are 2 measures of the ability of an infectious agent to spread in the environment. They differ in that R0 assumes zero immunity in the population, while Re or Rt accounts for change over time. Reproductive number modeling is influenced by several factors, including serial interval, the time between the onset of symptoms in an infector, and a secondary case. Quantification of the ability of a pathogen to spread is essential in guiding policy. METHODS: Here, we construct epidemic curves and calculate daily Rt values for the state of Louisiana and each of its 9 regions. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated variation over both time and geography in calculated R0 and Rt values. Generally, as time has progressed, predicted R0 and Rt values have decreased. In Louisiana, mean Rt was calculated at 3.07 in March and 0.82 by May. A reproductive number less than one is important as it indicates infectious spread will decline with time. The most recent finding of mean Rt = 0.82 is important. It stands in stark contrast to the situation in April when New Orleans, Louisiana, had the highest per capita coronavirus mortality rate in the United States - twice that of New York City and 4 times the rate in Seattle. CONCLUSION: As locations around the world begin to lift restrictions, monitoring of infectious spread will be essential.

Hidden in plain sight: The effects of BCG vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic.

To investigate the relationship between Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 by a bioinformatics approach, two datasets for the SARS-CoV-2 infection group and BCG-vaccinated group were downloaded. Differentially Expressed Genes were identified. Gene ontology and pathways were functionally enriched, and networking was constructed in NetworkAnalyst. Lastly, the correlation between post-BCG vaccination and COVID-19 transcriptome signatures was established. A total of 161 DEGs (113 upregulated DEGs and 48 downregulated genes) were identified in the SARS-CoV-2 group. In the pathway enrichment analysis, a cross-reference of upregulated Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways in SARS-CoV-2 with downregulated counterparts in the BCG-vaccinated group, resulted in the intersection of 45 common pathways, accounting for 86.5% of SARS-CoV-2 upregulated pathways. Of these intersecting pathways, a vast majority were immune and inflammatory pathways with top significance in interleukin-17, tumor necrosis factor, NOD-like receptors, and nuclear factor-κB signaling pathways. Given the inverse relationship of the specific differentially expressed gene pathways highlighted in our results, the BCG-vaccine may play a protective role against COVID-19 by mounting a nonspecific immunological response and further investigation of this relationship is warranted.

Asthma in COVID-19 patients: An extra chain fitting around the neck?

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread across the globe. Pre-existing comorbidities have been found to have a dramatic effect on the disease course. We sought to analyze the effect of asthma on the disease progression and outcomes of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center retrospective study of positively confirmed COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 502 COVID-19 adult patients (72 asthma and 430 non-asthma cohorts) with mean age of 60.7 years were included in the study. The frequency of asthma in hospitalized cohorts was 14.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that asthma patients were more likely to be obese (75% versus 54.2%, p = 0.001), with a higher frequency of intubation (40.3% versus 27.8%, p = 0.036), and required a longer duration of hospitalization (15.1 ± 12.5 versus 11.5 ± 10.6, p = 0.015). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that asthmatic patients were not associated with higher risk of ICU admission (OR = 1.81, 95%CI = 0.98-3.09, p = 0.06), endotracheal intubation (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 0.99-3.04, p = 0.06) or complications (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 0.82-2.31, p = 0.23). Asthmatic patients were not associated with higher odds of prolonged hospital length of stay (OR = 1.48, 95%CI = 0.82-2.66, p = 0.20) or with ICU stay (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.28-2.02, p = 0.58). Kaplan-Meier curve showed no significant difference in the overall survival of the two groups (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Despite the increased prevalence of hospitalization in elder asthmatic COVID-19 patients, after adjustment for other variables, it was neither associated with increased severity nor worse outcomes.

A Trial of Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine combination in Adults Hospitalized with moderate and severe Covid-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The selected combination was based on limited evidence clinically and in vitro on the efficacy of the Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2. The two medications were listed in many guidelines as treatment options and ongoing trials assessing their efficacy and safety. Thus, we want to prove the clinical effectiveness of the combination as therapy. TRIAL DESIGN: This is an Open label, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel therapeutic agents in hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19. It is a multicenter trial that will compare Favipiravir plus Hydroxychloroquine combination (experimental arm) to a control arm. PARTICIPANTS: All study procedures will be conducted in eight centres in Saudia Arabia: King Abdulaziz Medical City National Guard Health Affairs in Riyadh. King Abdulaziz Hospital - Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia AlMadina General Hospital, Madnia, Saudi Arabia Al-Qatif Central Hospital, Saudi Arabia Imam Abdulrahman Al Faisal Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia Imam Abdulrahman Alfaisal Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Inclusion Criteria • Should be at least 18 years of age, • Male or nonpregnant female, • Diagnosed with COVID-19 by PCR confirmed SARS-coV-2 viral infection. • Able to sign the consent form and agree to clinical samples collection (or their legal surrogates if subjects are or become unable to make informed decisions).. • Moderate or Severe COVID-19, defined as oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or significant clinical symptoms that require hospital admission. • patients had to be enrolled within 10 days of disease onset. Exclusion Criteria • Patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding. • Will be transferred to a non-study site hospital or discharged from hospital within 72 hours. • Known sensitivity/allergy to hydroxychloroquine or Favipiravir • Current use of hydroxychloroquine for another indication • Prior diagnosis of retinopathy • Prior diagnosis of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency • Major comorbidities increasing the risk of study drug including: i. Hematologic malignancy, ii. Advanced (stage 4-5) chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, iii. Known history of ventricular arrhythmias, iv. Current use of drugs that prolong the QT interval, Severe liver damage (Child-Pugh score ≥ C, AST> 5 times the upper limit), HIV. • The investigator believes that participating in the trial is not in the best interests of the patient, or the investigator considers unsuitable for enrollment (such as unpredictable risks or subject compliance issues). • Clinical prognostic non-survival, palliative care, or in deep coma and no have response to supportive treatment within three hours of admission • Patient with irregular rhythm • Patient with a history of heart attack (myocardial infarction) • Patient with a family history of sudden death from heart attack before the age of 50 • Take other drugs that can cause prolonged QT interval • Patient who is receiving immunosuppressive therapy (cyclosporin) which cannot be switched to another agent or adjusted while using the investigational drug • Gout/history of Gout or hyperuricemia (above the ULN), hereditary xanthinuria or xanthine calculi of the urinary tract. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The treatment intervention would be for a maximum of 10 days from randomization and it would be as follows: Favipiravir for 10 days: Administer 1800 mg (9 tablets) by mouth twice daily for one day, followed by 800mg (4 tablets) twice daily (total days of therapy is 10 days) Hydroxychloroquine for 5 days: (400mg) twice daily on day 1; for days 2-5 (200mg) twice daily. Reference Comparator Therapy: Standard of care is defined as: Treatment that is accepted by medical experts as a proper treatment for Covid-19 disease. Standard care comprised of, as necessary, supplemental oxygen, noninvasive and invasive ventilation, antibiotic agents, vasopressor support, renal-replacement therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and antiviral therapy except Favipiravir. Also, it may include intravenous fluids and medications for symptoms relief . MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to an improvement of two points (from the status at randomization) on a seven-category ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital, whichever came first (14 days from Randomization). RANDOMISATION: Eligible participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the combination group (Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine) or a control group. The patients will be randomized utilizing Web based data entry System with a stratification based on the centre and the ICU admission. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an Open label study and only the analyst will be blinded during the study conduct. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Under the classical two arm parallel design the total effective sample sizes needed is 472 subjects (236 subjects per group). TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 3.1 (dated 11 Aug 2020), and currently recruitment is ongoing. The date recruitment started was May 21, 2020 and the investigators anticipate the trial will finish recruiting by the end of December 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04392973 , 19 May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of hematological and immunological markers in COVID-19 infection: A meta-analysis of 6320 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based characterization of the diagnostic and prognostic value of the hematological and immunological markers related to the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical to understand the clinical course of the infection and to assess in development and validation of biomarkers. METHODS: Based on systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct up to April 22, 2020, a total of 52 eligible articles with 6,320 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cohorts were included. Pairwise comparison between severe versus mild disease, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) versus general ward admission and expired versus survivors were performed for 36 laboratory parameters. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the DerSimonian Laird method/random effects model and converted to the Odds ratio (OR). The decision tree algorithm was employed to identify the key risk factor(s) attributed to severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: Cohorts with elevated levels of white blood cells (WBCs) (OR = 1.75), neutrophil count (OR = 2.62), D-dimer (OR = 3.97), prolonged prothrombin time (PT) (OR = 1.82), fibrinogen (OR = 3.14), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR = 1.60), procalcitonin (OR = 4.76), IL-6 (OR = 2.10), and IL-10 (OR = 4.93) had higher odds of progression to severe phenotype. Decision tree model (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 81%) showed the high performance of neutrophil count at a cut-off value of more than 3.74x109/L for identifying patients at high risk of severe COVID-19. Likewise, ICU admission was associated with higher levels of WBCs (OR = 5.21), neutrophils (OR = 6.25), D-dimer (OR = 4.19), and prolonged PT (OR = 2.18). Patients with high IL-6 (OR = 13.87), CRP (OR = 7.09), D-dimer (OR = 6.36), and neutrophils (OR = 6.25) had the highest likelihood of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Several hematological and immunological markers, in particular neutrophilic count, could be helpful to be included within the routine panel for COVID-19 infection evaluation to ensure risk stratification and effective management.

Association of cardiac biomarkers and comorbidities with increased mortality, severity, and cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients: A meta-regression and decision tree analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has a deleterious effect on several systems, including the cardiovascular system. We aim to systematically explore the association of COVID-19 severity and mortality rate with the history of cardiovascular diseases and/or other comorbidities and cardiac injury laboratory markers. METHODS: The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to estimate pooled results from the 56 studies. The prognostic performance of cardiac markers for predicting adverse outcomes and to select the best cutoff threshold was estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision tree analysis by combining cardiac markers with demographic and clinical features was applied to predict mortality and severity in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 17 794 patients showed patients with high cardiac troponin I (OR = 5.22, 95% CI = 3.73-7.31, P < .001) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels (OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 2.84-4.66, P < .001) were more likely to develop adverse outcomes. High troponin I more than 13.75 ng/L combined with either advanced age more than 60 years or elevated AST level more than 27.72 U/L was the best model to predict poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 severity and mortality are complicated by myocardial injury. Assessment of cardiac injury biomarkers may improve the identification of those patients at the highest risk and potentially lead to improved therapeutic approaches.

COVID-19 and liver dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies.

Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the most significant global health crisis. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to find the association between liver injuries and the severity of COVID-19 disease. Online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science direct, were searched to detect relevant publications up to 16 April 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity between studies, a fixed- or random-effects model was applied to pool data. Publication bias Egger's test was also performed. Meta-analysis of 20 retrospective studies (3428 patients), identified that patients with a severe manifestation of COVID-19 exhibited significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin values with prolonged prothrombin time. Furthermore, lower albumin level was associated with a severe presentation of COVID-19. Liver dysfunction was associated with a severe outcome of COVID-19 disease. Close monitoring of the occurrence of liver dysfunction is beneficial in early warning of unfavorable outcomes.