Changes in inpatient admissions before and during COVID-19 outbreak in a large tertiary hospital in Shanghai.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused a significant strain on healthcare resources and utilization worldwide. However, the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on patient hospitalization was barely known. This study aimed to determine the impact of the outbreak on the pattern of inpatient hospital admissions to help allocate health care resources during a pandemic. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who were hospitalized in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai between 1 January and 30 April across the years 2017 to 2020. The number of hospitalizations during the study period from 2017 to 2020 were 30,605, 31,464, 32,812 and 24,163, respectively. Changes in patient volumes and the frequency of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problem Tenth Edition (ICD-10) codes before and after the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak were analyzed and presented as absolute and relative differences with 95% confidence intervals between periods of different years. Results: Overall inpatient hospital admissions decreased by 26.35% between January and April 2020, compared to the same period in 2019. The average age of patients in 2020 was higher compared to those from 2017 to 2019. Conversely, the proportions of self-paying patients and non-local patients were significantly lower between January and April 2020 compared to the same period in the previous three years. The top five ICD-10 codes remained common before and during the pandemic. Admissions associated with antineoplastic radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy increased in frequency and proportion by 2020 (difference, 5.6%, 95% CI: 4.4% to 6.8%), and increased proportions were observed for liver and intrahepatic bile duct malignancies (2.18%, 95% CI: 1.15% to 3.21%), cerebral infarction (2.27%, 95% CI: 0.54% to 4.00%), and chronic kidney disease (3.56%, 95% CI: 1.79% to 5.33%). Conclusions: There was a significant reduction in the number of inpatients and a marked change in admission diagnoses during the COVID-19 outbreak. Our findings are useful for making informed decisions on hospital management and reallocation of available health care resources during a pandemic.

A bibliometric analysis of infectious diseases in patients with liver transplantation in the last decade.

BACKGROUND: A bibliometric analysis was performed to reveal the current status of investigations in infectious diseases in patients with liver transplantation (LT) and to prioritize future research needs. METHODS: The present study comprehensively retrieved publications relevant to infectious diseases in LT recipients published between 2010 and 2020. The search was conducted on the Web of Science (WoS) database. A bibliometric analysis was conducted through machine learning and visualization tools, including VOSviewer, Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder, and Graphical Clustering Toolkit. Research hotspots and trends in the field were assessed, while the contributions and collaborations of countries, institutions, and authors were documented. RESULTS: A total of 691 publications were analyzed. Research output sharply increased in 2015, with a fast drop afterward. "Liver transplantation" was the most frequent keyword, with strong links to "hepatitis C virus" and "infection". Study areas included risk factors of infectious diseases in LT recipients, pathogens causing post-transplantation infections, antibacterial therapy and prophylaxis for peritransplant infection complications, living donor LT, and pediatric LT. The efficacy and safety of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among liver transplant recipients has attracted recent research interest. Didier Samuel was the most productive author, while Xavier Forns was the top-cited author. Shanghai Jiao Tong University was the most productive contributor, and Gilead Sciences was the most cited organization. Moreover, the USA was the greatest contributor. Gastroenterology was the most cited journal, while Liver Transplantation was the most prolific journal. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis will better understand the research status of infectious complications in LT recipients and forecast future research trends. Priority should be given to identifying risk factors for peritransplantation infections and effective treatments against infectious complications in the coming years.

Reduction in antimicrobial use associated with a multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship programme in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai: a segmented regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rational use of antibiotics received great attention in China, therefore the multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship (MAMS) is urgently required in hospital management. We conducted this study to assess the impact of a MAMS programme on antimicrobial use in a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai. The MAMS programme involved multifaceted interventions consisting of a quality premium with financial incentives, antibiotic restriction, audit and feedback, and education. Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of inpatients to analyse monthly and annual antibiotic consumption and the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions during 2017-2020. Segmented regression analysis of the interrupted time series was used to contrast antimicrobial use during 2019-2020, with non-MAMS data from the 2017-2018 period as the historical control. RESULTS: With MAMS implementation, antibiotic consumption decreased from 63.3 (59.3, 67.2) defined daily doses (DDDs) per 100 patient-days (PD) to 43.3 (39.0, 49.8) DDDs/100 PD (P<0.001), and the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 44.8% (44.1%, 45.4%) to 43.3% (42.2%, 44.3%) (P<0.001). Segmented regression models suggested a reduction in antibiotic consumption (coefficient = -12.537, P<0.001) and indicated a downward trend in the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions (coefficient =-0.165, P=0.049). Neither antibiotic consumption nor the percentage of antibiotic prescriptions was influenced by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that MAMS plays an important role in reducing antibiotic use and is not affected by special circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This novel intervention, consisting of a quality premium and multidisciplinary cooperation, should be prioritized by policy and decision makers, where rational management of antimicrobial use is urgently needed.

Efficacy and safety of current therapeutic options for COVID-19 - lessons to be learnt from SARS and MERS epidemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The rapidly progressing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global concern. This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of current option of therapies for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) besides COVID-19, in an attempt to identify promising therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and WANFANG DATA for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated therapies (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy, and ribavirin-based therapy, etc.) for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The primary outcomes were mortality, virological eradication and clinical improvement, and secondary outcomes were improvement of symptoms and chest radiography results, incidence of acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS), utilization of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AEs). Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models, and the quality of evidence was appraised using GRADEpro. Eighteen articles (5 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 11 retrospective cohort studies) involving 4,941 patients were included. Compared with control treatment, anti-coronary virus interventions significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I2 = 81.3%), remarkably ameliorate clinical improvement (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19) and radiographical improvement (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36, I2 = 11.0 %), without manifesting clear effect on virological eradication, incidence of ARDS, intubation, and AEs. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids remarkably decreased mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68). The lopinavir/ritonavir-based combination showed superior virological eradication and radiographical improvement with reduced rate of ARDS. Likewise, hydroxychloroquine improved radiographical result. For safety, ribavirin could induce more bradycardia, anemia and transaminitis. Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine could increase AEs rate especially diarrhea. Overall, the quality of evidence on most outcomes were very low. In conclusion, although we could not draw a clear conclusion for the recommendation of potential therapies for COVID-19 considering the very low quality of evidence and wide heterogeneity of interventions and indications, our results may help clinicians to comprehensively understand the advantages and drawbacks of each anti-coronavirus agents on efficacy and safety profiles. Lopinavir/ritonavir combinations might observe better virological eradication capability than other anti-coronavirus agents. Conversely, ribavirin might cause more safety concerns especially bradycardia. Thus, large RCTs objectively assessing the efficacy of antiviral therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infections should be conducted with high priority.

Current therapeutic options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-lessons learned from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) therapy: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, first manifested in December 2019, and spread rapidly worldwide. Facing this lethal disease, there is an urgent need to develop potent therapies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetically and symptomatically resembles SARS-CoV and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Numerous agents have been utilised during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemics, which may show some benefit against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database will be searched. Manual searches will be conducted by searching pre-printing websites, clinical trial registers, and screening the reference lists of inclusive studies. The screening of all citations and the selection of inclusive articles will be conducted by two reviewers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled cohort studies reporting antiviral therapies, including ribavirin, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon, for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 will be included. The primary outcomes will be mortality, incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and utilisation of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission. The secondary outcomes will be improvement in symptoms and chest radiography results, virus clearance, changes in blood test results, and serum tests. The quality of the retrieved RCTs and observational studies will be appraised according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. If feasible, we will perform a fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise all the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of current therapeutic options in SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, or SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The findings of this study may inform subsequent antiviral interventions for patients with COVID-19. STUDY REGISTRATION: The protocol of this study has been submitted to the PROSPERO platform (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), and the registration number is CRD42020168639.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (≥60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (≥60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.