Virus related acute pancreatitis and virus superinfection in the 'Dual disease' model of acute pancreatitis and SARS-Co-V2 infection: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can cause acute pancreatitis (AP) and SARS-CoV-2 superinfection can occur in patients with AP during prolonged hospitalisation. Our objective was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 related AP and study the impact of SARS-CoV-2 superinfection on outcomes in AP. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective study, all patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020 and February 2021 were divided into two groups: SARS-CoV-2-related AP and superadded SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with AP. The two groups were compared with each other and the whole cohort was compared with a non-COVID AP cohort. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and AP (SARS-CoV-2-related AP; n = 18 and AP with SARS-CoV-2 superadded infection; n = 67) were included during the study period. They had a higher mortality [28 (32.9%) vs. 44 (19.1%), aOR 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5-5.3)] than 230 propensity matched non-COVID AP patients. Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 and AP patients was due to critical COVID. SARS-CoV-2-related- AP (n = 18) had a higher but statistically insignificant mortality than SARS-CoV-2 superinfection in AP [8/18 (44.4%) vs 20/67 (29.8%), p = 0.24]. On multivariable analysis, infection with SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.43.7) was a predictor of in-hospital mortality in addition to organ failure (OF) in patients with AP. CONCLUSION: Patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection had a higher mortality than matched non-COVID AP patients which was largely attributable to the severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 related AP had higher OF and in-hospital mortality.

Virus induced acute pancreatitis and virus superinfection in the ‘Dual disease’ model of acute pancreatitis and SARS-Co-V2 infection: A multicentre prospective study

Background SARS-CoV-2 can cause acute pancreatitis (AP) and virus superinfection can occur during prolong hospitalisation. Our objective was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 related AP and study the impact of SARS-CoV-2 superinfection on outcomes in AP. Methods In this multicentre prospective study, all patients with AP plus SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020 and February 2021 were divided into groups: SARS-CoV-2-related AP and superadded SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with AP. The two groups were compared with each other and the whole cohort was compared with non-COVID AP cohort. Results A total of 85 patients with SARS-CoV-2 plus AP (SARS-CoV-2-related AP;n = 18 and AP with SARS-CoV-2 superadded infection;n = 67) were included during the study period. They had a higher mortality [28 (32.9%) vs. 44 (19.1%), aOR 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5–5.3)] than 230 propensity matched non-COVID AP patients. Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 plus AP patients was due to critical COVID. SARS-CoV-2-induced AP (n = 18) had a higher but statistically insignificant mortality than AP plus SARS-CoV-2 superinfection [8/18 (44.4%) vs 20/67 (29.8%), p = 0.24]. On multivariable analysis, infection with SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 2.3;95% CI, 1.4–3.7) was a predictor of in-hospital mortality in addition to OF in patients with AP. Conclusion Patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a higher mortality than matched non-COVID AP patients largely attributable to the severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 related AP has higher OF and in-hospital mortality. Graphical Image 1

Frequency of Neurologic Manifestations in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: One year after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we aimed to summarize the frequency of neurologic manifestations reported in patients with COVID-19 and to investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE for studies from December 31, 2019, to December 15, 2020, enrolling consecutive patients with COVID-19 presenting with neurologic manifestations. Risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for neurologic manifestations. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated to determine the association of neurologic manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed with I 2, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2. RESULTS: Of 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,721 patients with COVID-19, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurologic manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurologic symptoms included fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%), and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurologic diagnosis (pooled prevalence 2%). In patients with COVID-19 ≥60 years of age, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34%, and the presence of any neurologic manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.91). DISCUSSION: Up to one-third of patients with COVID-19 analyzed in this review experienced at least 1 neurologic manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those >60 years of age, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurologic manifestations in this group was associated with nearly a doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted with the limitations of observational studies and associated bias in mind. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181867.

Efficacy and safety of antivirals for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has led to a severe medical, social and economic crisis globally. Use of antivirals has given inconsistent results; thus systematic summaries of available evidence are required for any recommendations for treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of antivirals for Covid-19. Methods: The databases we searched were-Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Medrxiv. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two researchers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random effects for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty studies were found eligible for inclusion: 6 randomized controlled trials, 9 cohort studies and 5 case series. Moderate-quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit from the use of remdesivir in improving the number of recoveries (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07-1.31; I2 = 0%) and time to recovery in days (median -3.02; 95% CI -4.98 to -1.07; I2 = 97%). A possibility of lower mortality is suggested by low-quality evidence with remdesivir (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37, I2 = 58%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests no certain benefit of using lopinavir/ritonavir for Covid-19 compared to arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir combined with arbidol or other medications used as controls. Conclusion: Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required for all antivirals to treat Covid-19. At present, remdesivir seems more promising than other antivirals.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Efficacité et innocuité des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 selon des données pour la COVID-19, d'autres infections aux coronavirus, l'influenza, la pneumonie extrahospitalière et le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë : revue systématique et méta-analyse.

CONTEXTE: Il existe très peu de données directes sur l'administration de corticostéroïdes aux patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Les données indirectes sur des maladies associées devront donc guider les conclusions quant aux bénéfices et aux préjudices associés à cette pratique. Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction d'une ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé des revues systématiques sur les effets des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 et de maladies respiratoires aiguës sévères associées. MÉTHODES: Dans des bases de données biomédicales chinoises et internationales et des sources de prépublications, nous avons cherché les essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et les études d'observation comparant des patients atteints de la COVID-19, du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) ou du syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) ayant reçu des corticostéroïdes à des patients semblables n'ayant pas reçu ce type de médicaments. Pour le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA), l'influenza et la pneumonie extrahospitalière (PEH), nous avons mis à jour les revues systématiques rigoureuses les plus récentes. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires pour cerner les risques relatifs, puis nous avons utilisé le risque de référence des patients atteints de la COVID-19 pour calculer les effets absolus. RÉSULTATS: Pour le SDRA, selon 1 petite étude de cohorte sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19 et 7 ERC sur des patients atteints d'une autre maladie (risque relatif : 0,72, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,55­0,93, différence entre les moyennes [DM] 17,3 % plus faible, données de faible qualité), les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité. Chez les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, 2 études d'observation ont généré des données directes de très faible qualité montrant une augmentation du risque de mortalité avec l'administration de corticostéroïdes (rapport de risques 2,30, IC de 95 % 1,00­5,29, DM 11,9 % plus élevé). C'est aussi le cas de données observationnelles sur l'influenza. Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité sur le SRAS et le SRMO montrent peu ou pas de réduction dans le risque de mortalité. Des essais randomisés et contrôlés sur la PEH suggèrent que les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité (risque relatif 0,70, IC de 95 % 0,50­0,98, DM 3,1 % plus faible, données de très faible qualité), et augmenter le risque d'hyperglycémie. INTERPRÉTATION: Les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 avec SDRA. Pour les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, les données sur les bénéfices provenant de différentes sources sont incohérentes et de très faible qualité.

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 and 8 June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10,659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution (mean difference - 0.54 days (- 1.19-011)) or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.