Niacinamide May Be Associated with Improved Outcomes in COVID-19-Related Acute Kidney Injury: An Observational Study.

Background: AKI is a significant complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with no effective therapy. Niacinamide, a vitamin B3 analogue, has some evidence of efficacy in non-COVID-19-related AKI. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between niacinamide therapy and outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related AKI. Methods: We implemented a quasi-experimental design with nonrandom, prospective allocation of niacinamide in 201 hospitalized adult patients, excluding those with baseline eGFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m2 on or off dialysis, with COVID-19-related AKI by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, in two hospitals with identical COVID-19 care algorithms, one of which additionally implemented treatment with niacinamide for COVID-19-related AKI. Patients on the niacinamide protocol (B3 patients) were compared against patients at the same institution before protocol commencement and contemporaneous patients at the non-niacinamide hospital (collectively, non-B3 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death or RRT. Results: A total of 38 out of 90 B3 patients and 62 out of 111 non-B3 patients died or received RRT. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling, niacinamide was associated with a lower risk of RRT or death (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00; P=0.05), an association driven by patients with KDIGO stage-2/3 AKI (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.65; P=0.03; P interaction with KDIGO stage=0.03). Total mortality also followed this pattern (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.52; in patients with KDIGO stage-2/3 AKI, P=0.002). Serum creatinine after AKI increased by 0.20 (SEM, 0.08) mg/dl per day among non-B3 patients with KDIGO stage-2/3 AKI, but was stable among comparable B3 patients (+0.01 [SEM, 0.06] mg/dl per day; P interaction=0.03). Conclusions: Niacinamide was associated with lower risk of RRT/death and improved creatinine trajectory among patients with severe COVID-19-related AKI. Larger randomized studies are necessary to establish a causal relationship.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients With a History of Cancer and Comorbid Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with both cancer and comorbid CVD are unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2,476 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at 4 Massachusetts hospitals between March 11 and May 21, 2020. Patients were stratified by a history of either cancer (n=195) or CVD (n=414) and subsequently by the presence of both cancer and CVD (n=82). We compared outcomes between patients with and without cancer and patients with both cancer and CVD compared with patients with either condition alone. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-associated severe disease, defined as a composite of the need for mechanical ventilation, shock, or death. Secondary endpoints included death, shock, need for mechanical ventilation, need for supplemental oxygen, arrhythmia, venous thromboembolism, encephalopathy, abnormal troponin level, and length of stay. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified cancer as an independent predictor of COVID-19-associated severe disease among all infected patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to develop COVID-19-associated severe disease than were those without cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.53-2.68; P<.001). Furthermore, patients with both cancer and CVD had a higher likelihood of COVID-19-associated severe disease compared with those with either cancer (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.10; P=.02) or CVD (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.21-2.66; P=.004) alone. Patients died more frequently if they had both cancer and CVD compared with either cancer (35% vs 17%; P=.004) or CVD (35% vs 21%; P=.009) alone. Arrhythmias and encephalopathy were also more frequent in patients with both cancer and CVD compared with those with cancer alone. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of both cancer and CVD are at significantly higher risk of experiencing COVID-19-associated adverse outcomes. Aggressive public health measures are needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 infection in this vulnerable patient population.

Management of Cardiovascular Disease During Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic.

Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease and risk factors are more likely to experience adverse outcomes associated with the novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Additionally, consistent reports of cardiac injury and de novo cardiac complications, including possible myocarditis, arrhythmia, and heart failure in patients without prior cardiovascular disease or significant risk factors, are emerging, possibly due to an accentuated host immune response and cytokine release syndrome. As the spread of the virus increases exponentially, many patients will require medical care either for COVID-19 related or traditional cardiovascular issues. While the COVID-19 pandemic is dominating the attention of the healthcare system, there is an unmet need for a standardized approach to deal with COVID-19 associated and other traditional cardiovascular issues during this period. We provide consensus guidance for the management of various cardiovascular conditions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with the goal of providing the best care to all patients and minimizing the risk of exposure to frontline healthcare workers.

Comparison of the Impact of Wikipedia, UpToDate, and a Digital Textbook on Short-Term Knowledge Acquisition Among Medical Students: Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Web-Based Resources.

BACKGROUND: Web-based resources are commonly used by medical students to supplement curricular material. Three commonly used resources are UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer Inc), digital textbooks, and Wikipedia; there are concerns, however, regarding Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of Wikipedia use on medical students' short-term knowledge acquisition compared with UpToDate and a digital textbook. METHODS: This was a prospective, nonblinded, three-arm randomized trial. The study was conducted from April 2014 to December 2016. Preclerkship medical students were recruited from four Canadian medical schools. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants through word of mouth, social media, and email. Participants must have been enrolled in their first or second year of medical school at a Canadian medical school. After recruitment, participants were randomized to one of the three Web-based resources: Wikipedia, UpToDate, or a digital textbook. During testing, participants first completed a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) of 25 questions emulating a Canadian medical licensing examination. During the MCQ, participants took notes on topics to research. Then, participants researched topics and took written notes using their assigned resource. They completed the same MCQ again while referencing their notes. Participants also rated the importance and availability of five factors pertinent to Web-based resources. The primary outcome measure was knowledge acquisition as measured by posttest scores. The secondary outcome measures were participants' perceptions of importance and availability of each resource factor. RESULTS: A total of 116 medical students were recruited. Analysis of variance of the MCQ scores demonstrated a significant interaction between time and group effects (P<.001, ηg2=0.03), with the Wikipedia group scoring higher on the MCQ posttest compared with the textbook group (P<.001, d=0.86). Access to hyperlinks, search functions, and open-source editing were rated significantly higher by the Wikipedia group compared with the textbook group (P<.001). Additionally, the Wikipedia group rated open access editing significantly higher than the UpToDate group; expert editing and references were rated significantly higher by the UpToDate group compared with the Wikipedia group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students who used Wikipedia had superior short-term knowledge acquisition compared with those who used a digital textbook. Additionally, the Wikipedia group trended toward better posttest performance compared with the UpToDate group, though this difference was not significant. There were no significant differences between the UpToDate group and the digital textbook group. This study challenges the view that Wikipedia should be discouraged among medical students, instead suggesting a potential role in medical education.