Role of increased neutrophil extracellular trap formation on acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients.

Background: A strong association between elevated neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) levels and poor clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported. However, while acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of COVID-19, the role of NETs in COVID-19-associated AKI is unclear. We investigated the association between elevated NETs and AKI and the prognostic role of NETs in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Two representative markers of NETs, circulating nucleosomes and myeloperoxidase-DNA, were measured in 115 hospitalized patients. Serum levels of interleukin [IL]-6, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 [MCP-1], plasma von Willebrand factor (vWF) and urinary biomarkers of renal tubular damage (ß2-microglobulin [ß2M] and kidney injury molecule 1 [KIM-1]) were measured. Results: AKI was found in 43 patients (37.4%), and pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) was a strong risk factor for AKI. Higher circulating NET levels were a significant predictor of increased risk of initial ICU admission, in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.08-9.19) and AKI (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.41), independent of age, diabetes, pre-existing CKD and IL-6 levels. There were strong correlations between circulating nucleosome levels and urinary KIM-1/creatinine (r=0.368, p=0.001) and ß2M (r=0.218, p=0.049) levels. NETs were also strongly closely associated with serum vWF (r = 0.356, p<0.001), but not with IL-6 or MCP-1 levels. Conclusions: Elevated NETs were closely associated with AKI, which was a strong predictor of mortality. The close association between NETs and vWF may suggest a role for NETs in COVID-19-associated vasculopathy leading to AKI.

The Efficacy of Olfactory Training as a Treatment for Olfactory Disorders Caused by Coronavirus Disease-2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There have been reports investigating the use of olfactory training in olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of olfactory training on the olfactory dysfunction of patients infected with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, the Cochrane database, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar up to May 2022. We retrieved studies that compared the extents of olfactory dysfunction before and after olfactory training. We performed a subgroup analysis by the duration of olfactory dysfunction. RESULTS: The olfactory score after olfactory training (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.0830, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.6416; 1.5245], P < .0001, I2 = 90.4%) was higher than that before training. The olfactory dysfunction rate differed significantly (OR = 0.0232, 95% CI [0.0052; 0.1044], P < .0001, I2 = 63.1%) before and after olfactory training. On subgroup analysis, although patients with both acute (onset < 30 days prior) and chronic (onset > 30 days prior) olfactory dysfunction evidenced clinically significant improvements, training during acute dysfunction (compared to acute dysfunction) increased the olfactory score to a greater extent (SMD = 1.7779, 95% CI [1.0077; 2.5481] vs 0.6928 [0.2143; 1.1712], P = 0.0190). Moreover, as a result of subgroup analysis by dividing the included studies into2 using 2-month training period as standard, there was no statistically significant difference in the effect of the training period in the included study. CONCLUSION: Olfactory training improved olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19. Such training was effective in both the acute and chronic phases.

Efficacy of topical steroids for the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute-onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. PARTICIPANTS: Patients infected with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for articles up to September 2021. We analysed studies comparing the improvement of olfactory dysfunction between topical steroid treatment and control groups (placebo or no treatment). In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis by study type. RESULTS: The improvement of olfactory score at 2 (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.7272, 95% confidence interval = [0.3851, 1.0692], p < .0001, I2  = 62.1%) and 4 weeks post-treatment (SMD = 1.0440 [0.6777, 1.4102], p < .0001, I2  = 61.2%) was statistically greater in the treatment than control group. However, there was no significant difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4345 [0.9525, 2.1604], p = .0842, I2  = 45.4%) in the incidence of fully recovery from anosmia/hyposmia between the treatment and control groups. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory score at 4 weeks post-treatment (OR = 0.6177 [0.1309, 1.1045] vs. 0.1720 [0.8002, 1.5438], p = .0761) or the incidence of full recovery from anosmia/hyposmia (OR = 1.8478 [0.6092, 5.6053] vs. 1.3784 [0.8872, 2.1414], p = .8038) between randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although this meta-analysis found that topical steroids improved the acute-onset olfactory dysfunction caused by COVID-19, there was no difference in the rate of full olfactory recovery between treated and control patients.

Predictive Value of Olfactory and Taste Symptoms in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the diagnostic value of various symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in screening for this disease. METHODS: Two authors (working independently) comprehensively reviewed six databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) from their dates of inception until November 2020. The predictive value of patient-reported symptoms, including otolaryngologic and general symptoms, was evaluated in adults who underwent testing for COVID-19. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative data were extracted from each study. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (ver. 2). RESULTS: Twenty-eight prospective and retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of a change in olfaction and/or taste was 10.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.43-12.34). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8. Olfactory and/or taste changes had a low sensitivity (0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.66) but moderate negative (0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85] and positive (0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87) predictive values and a high specificity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Olfactory and/or taste changes had a higher diagnostic value than the other otolaryngologic symptoms, a higher DOR and specificity, and a similar or higher diagnostic value than the other general symptoms. CONCLUSION: Among otolaryngologic symptoms, olfactory and/or taste dysfunction was the most closely associated with COVID-19 and its general symptoms, and should therefore be considered when screening for the disease.

Clinical implications of coronavirus disease 2019 in neonates.

Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in December 2019, a small number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in neonates have been reported worldwide. Neonates currently account for only a minor proportion of the pediatric population affected by COVID-19. Thus, data on the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 in neonates are limited. Approximately 3% of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 reportedly tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Current limited data on neonates with COVID-19 suggest that neonatal COVID-19 shows a relatively benign course despite a high requirement for mechanical ventilation. However, neonates with pre-existing medical conditions and preterm infants appear to be at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19. The greatest perinatal concern of the COVID-19 pandemic is the possibility of vertical transmission, especially transplacental transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Although direct evidence of the vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is lacking, its possibility during late pregnancy cannot be ruled out. This review summarizes available case studies on COVID-19 in neonates and introduces what is currently known about neonatal COVID-19 with focus on its vertical transmission.

Response Guidelines for Newborn Infants Born to Mothers with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019

Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been spreading rapidly worldwide. With the increase in the number of infections, the numbers of pregnant women and newborn infants with COVID-19 are also increasing. Accord ing to the limited recent studies, COVID-19 appears to be mainly transmitted to newborn infants by the mother’s droplets or direct contact with the mother, and no clear evidence supports the vertical transmission from the mother to the newborn infant. To date, the likelihood of severe outcomes in newborn infants born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 is relatively very low, but the possibility should be considered. The present response guidelines address the management of newborn infants born to mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The management covers precautions for birth attendants or medical staffs, testing for COVID-19, isolation, neonatal care, breastfeeding, and mother/baby contact. These response guidelines can be revised in accordance with further updates on COVID-19 and should be adapted to each local health-care facility.