Hydroxychloroquine and QTc prolongation in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAmong many drugs that hold potential in COVID-19 pandemic, chloroquine (CQ), and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have generated unusual interest. With increasing usage, there has been growing concern about the prolongation of QTc interval and Torsades de Pointes (TdP) with HCQ, especially in combination with azithromycin.AimsThis meta-analysis is planned to study the risk of QTc prolongation and Torsades de pointes (TdP) by a well-defined criterion for HCQ, CQ alone, and in combination with Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was made in two databases (PubMed, Embase). Three outcomes explored in the included studies were frequency of QTc > 500 ms (ms) or ΔQTc > 60 ms (Outcome 1), frequency of QTc > 500 ms (Outcome 2) and frequency of TdP (Outcome 3). Random effects method with inverse variance approach was used for computation of pooled summary and risk ratio.ResultsA total of 13 studies comprising of 2138 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of outcome 1, outcome 2 and outcome 3 for HCQ, CQ with or without Azithromycin were 10.18% (5.59–17.82%, I² – 92%), 10.22% (6.01–16.85%, I² – 79%), and 0.72% (0.34–1.51, I² – 0%) respectively. The prevalence of outcome 2 in subgroup analysis for HCQ and HCQ + Azithromycin was 7.25% (3.22–15.52, I² – 59%) and 8.61% (4.52–15.79, I² – 76%), respectively. The risk ratio (RR) for outcome 1 and outcome 2 between HCQ + Azithromycin and HCQ was 1.22 (0.77–1.93, I² – 0%) & 1.51 (0.79–2.87, I² – 13%), respectively and was not significant. Heterogeneity was noted statistically as well clinically (regimen types, patient numbers, study design, and outcome definition).ConclusionThe use of HCQ/CQ is associated with a high prevalence of QTc prolongation. However, it is not associated with a high risk of TdP.     

Death,discharge and arrhythmias among patients with COVID-19 and cardiac injury

BACKGROUND:Cardiac injury is common in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to study predictors of in-hospital death, characteristics of arrhythmias and the effects of QT-prolonging therapy in patients with cardiac injury.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 29 and Mar. 8, 2020. Among patients who had cardiac injury, which we defined as an elevated level of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), we identified demographic and clinical characteristics associated with mortality and need for invasive ventilation.RESULTS:Among 1284 patients with severe COVID-19, 1159 had a cTnI level measured on admission to hospital, of whom 170 (14.7%) had results that showed cardiac injury. We found that mortality was markedly higher in patients with cardiac injury (71.2% v. 6.6%, p < 0.001). We determined that initial cTnI (per 10-fold increase, hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.66) and peak cTnI level during illness (per 10-fold increase, HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.38–2.10) were associated with poor survival. Peak cTnI was also associated with the need for invasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.02, 95% CI 1.92–4.98). We found arrhythmias in 44 of the 170 patients with cardiac injury (25.9%), including 6 patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, all of whom died. We determined that patients who received QT-prolonging drugs had longer QTc intervals than those who did not receive them (difference in medians, 45 ms, p = 0.01), but such treatment was not independently associated with mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69–1.57).INTERPRETATION:We found that in patients with COVID-19 and cardiac injury, initial and peak cTnI levels were associated with poor survival, and peak cTnI was a predictor of need for invasive ventilation. Patients with COVID-19 warrant assessment for cardiac injury and monitoring, especially if therapy that can prolong repolarization is started.Trial registration:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No. ChiCTR2000031301.

Poor outcomes have been reported recently in patients with pneumonia associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and cardiac injury.^1–3 These reports did not characterize patients as dead or discharged from hospital because the COVID-19 pandemic had not completed its course at the time of reporting.^1–3 The initial findings suggested that patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) had an arrhythmia burden of 44.4%;⁴ however, the exact nature of these arrhythmias was not characterized. Knowing now that cardiac injury is an important predictor of death, characterizing arrhythmias and determining independent predictors of outcome may allow health care providers to implement aggressive therapy and assign accurate probabilities for the outcome, which can be used to identify high-risk groups. In addition, such data would assist in decisions on discharge from the emergency department, therapy with QT-prolonging drugs, rhythm monitoring and triage of ventilators and ICU beds.⁵In Wuhan, China, the initial outbreak of COVID-19 has run its full course, which provides an opportunity to characterize outcomes and inform strategy for Europe and North America. As such, we evaluated 170 patients from Wuhan who had cardiac injury that was diagnosed early during their admission for pneumonia associated with COVID-19 for the outcomes of death, discharge and arrhythmias. We also characterized the effect of QT-prolonging drugs in these patients. We determined independent predictors of death and mechanical ventilation in this population with cardiac injury and severe COVID-19.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of mesenchymal stromal cells to treat coronavirus disease 2019: is it too late?

Background aimsEvidence regarding the extent that mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been limited by marked inter-study heterogeneity, inconsistent product characterization and appreciable risk of bias (RoB). Given the evolution of treatment options and trajectory of the pandemic, an updated analysis of high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed for a timely and conclusive understanding of the effectiveness of MSCs.MethodsA systematic literature search through March 30, 2022, identified all English language, full-text randomized controlled trials examining the use of MSCs in the treatment of COVID-19.ResultsEight studies were identified (316 patients, 165 administered MSCs and 151 controls). Controls evolved significantly over time with a broad range of comparison treatments. All studies reported mortality at study endpoint. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that MSCs decreased relative risk of death (risk ratio, 0.63, 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.94, P = 0.02, I² = 14%) with no significant difference in absolute risk of death. MSCs decreased length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels and increased odds of clinical improvement at study endpoint compared with controls. Rates of adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between MSC and control groups. Only two (25%) studies reported all four International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy criteria for MSC characterization. Included studies had low (n = 7) or some (n = 1) concerns regarding RoB.ConclusionsMSCs may reduce risk of death in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and improve secondary clinical outcomes. Variable outcome reporting, inconsistent product characterization and variable control group treatments remain barriers to higher-quality evidence and may constrain clinical usage. A master protocol is proposed and appears necessary for accelerated translation of higher-quality evidence for future applications of MSC therapy.     

Epidemiological determinants for the spread of COVID-19 in Riyadh Province of Saudi Arabia

Background and objectiveCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected millions of individuals all over the world. In addition to the patients' compelling indications, various sociodemographic characteristics were identified to influence infection complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the aforementioned parameters on the dissemination of COVID-19 among residents of Saudi Arabia's Riyadh region.Materials and methodsIn the Saudi Arabian province of Riyadh, a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of COVID-19 incidences, recoveries, and case-fatality ratio (CFR) was undertaken. The study was carried out by gathering daily COVID-19 records from the ministry of health's official websites between October 2020 and September 2021. The influencing factors were obtained from the statistical authority. Using the SPSS IBM 25 software, the data was examined. The association between demographic factors as well as the presence of comorbidity on the COVID-19 outcome was determined using Spearman's correlation and regression tests. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate the significance of the results.ResultsThe data from the study indicated that the highest number of COVID-19 cases were recorded in June 2021, and peak recovery was observed in July 2021. The CFR declined progressively from October 2020 to just over 1, even when the cases peaked. A significant (p < 0.05) correlation between diabetes and COVID-19 incidences was observed. The recovery rate had a significant (p < 0.05) association with the literacy rate and those aged 14–49 years old. Presences of co-morbidities such as Dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, stroke and heart failure have negatively affected the recovery from COVID-19 in the population. The CFR is significantly (p < 0.05) associated with people over 60, hypertensive patients, and asthma patients. Regression analysis suggested that the risk of complications due to COVID-19 infection is more in males, people above 60 years age and those suffering from co-morbidities.ConclusionsThe findings of the study indicate an association between several of the characteristics studied, such as gender, age, and comorbidity, and the spread of infection, recovery, and mortality. To restrict the spread of COVID-19 and prevent its complications, effective measures are required to control the modifiable risk factors.     

Serum Galectin-3 level and recurrence of atrial fibrillation post-ablation – Systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundSerum galectin-3, a circulating biomarker of fibrosis, has been associated with atrial remodelling. Recent studies investigating serum galectin-3 and AF recurrence post-ablation have shown mixed results. We aimed to analyze the latest evidence on the association between serum galectin-3 and AF recurrence after catheter ablation.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search on topics that assesses serum galectin-3 and AF recurrence post-ablation up until August 2019.ResultsThere were 597 patients from seven studies. The mean difference of serum galectin-3 was similar in both AF recurrence and non AF recurrence group (mean difference 0.78 ng/mL [-0.56, 2.13]; p = 0.25; I²: 69%. Upon removal of a study in sensitivity analysis, the serum galectin-3 became higher in AF recurrence group (mean difference 1.41 ng/mL [0.47, 2.34], p = 0.003; I²: 17%). Serum galectin-3 was associated with a higher risk for AF recurrence (HR 1.25 [1.01, 1.55]; p = 0.04; I²: 76%). Upon removal of a study in sensitivity analysis, HR became 1.45 [1.07, 1.96], p = 0.02; I²: 47%. Meta-analysis of adjusted HR demonstrated that high serum galectin-3 independently predicts AF recurrence (HR 1.15 [1.02, 1.29], p < 0.02; I²: 57%, p = 0.10)ConclusionSerum galectin-3 is associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence post-ablation. Further studies are required, especially emphasis on the cut-off point should be given, before integrating it in routine risk stratification for AF ablation.     

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell–based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19

BackgroundMesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.Methods and FindingsAll English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I² = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, –0.69; 95% CI, –1.15 to –0.22; P = .004; I² = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.ConclusionUse of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.     

Investigating centering,scan length,and arm position impact on radiation dose across 4 countries from 4 continents during pandemic: Mitigating key radioprotection issues

PurposeOptimization of CT scan practices can help achieve and maintain optimal radiation protection. The aim was to assess centering, scan length, and positioning of patients undergoing chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia and to investigate their effect on associated radiation doses.MethodsWith respective approvals from institutional review boards, we compiled CT imaging and radiation dose data from four hospitals belonging to four countries (Brazil, Iran, Italy, and USA) on 400 adult patients who underwent chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia between April 2020 and August 2020. We recorded patient demographics and volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol) and dose length product (DLP). From thin-section CT images of each patient, we estimated the scan length and recorded the first and last vertebral bodies at the scan start and end locations. Patient mis-centering and arm position were recorded. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA).ResultsThe extent and frequency of patient mis-centering did not differ across the four CT facilities (>0.09). The frequency of patients scanned with arms by their side (11–40% relative to those with arms up) had greater mis-centering and higher CTDI_vol and DLP at 2/4 facilities (p = 0.027–0.05). Despite lack of variations in effective diameters (p = 0.14), there were significantly variations in scan lengths, CTDI_vol and DLP across the four facilities (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMis-centering, over-scanning, and arms by the side are frequent issues with use of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia and are associated with higher radiation doses.     

Prolonged humoral and cellular immunity in COVID-19-recovered patients

By the beginning of 2021, the battle against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains ongoing. Investigating the adaptive immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, in patients who have recovered from this disease could contribute to our understanding of the natural host immune response. We enrolled 38 participants in this study. 7 healthy participants and 31 COVID-19 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 and categorized them into 3 groups according to their previous clinical presentations: 10 moderate, 9 mild, and 12 asymptomatic. Flow cytometry analysis of peripheral lymphocyte counts in recovered patients showed significantly increased levels of CD4⁺ T cells in patients with a history of mild and moderate COVID-19 symptoms compared with those healthy individuals (p < 0.05 and p < 0.0001 respectively). whereas no significant difference was observed in the CD8⁺ T cell percentage in COVID-19-recovered patients compared with healthy individuals. Our study demonstrated that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-S) IgG antibody production could be observed in all recovered COVID-19 patients, regardless of whether they were asymptomatic (p < 0.05)or presented with mild (p < 0.0001) or moderate symptoms (p < 0.01). Anti-S IgG antibodies could be detected in participants up to 90 days post-infection. In conclusion, the lymphocyte levels in recovered patients were associated with the clinical presentation of the disease, and further analysis is required to investigate relationships between different clinical presentations and lymphocyte activation and function.     

Comparison of arrhythmia detection by conventional Holter and a novel ambulatory ECG system using patch and Android App,over 24 h period

BackgroundAmbulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) is done for evaluation of arrhythmia. Commonly used AECG system is 24 h Holter. Patch based second generation AECG monitoring devices, which can record for longer periods, are now available.ObjectiveAndroid App based WebCardio using WiPatch is a new AECG system which records ECG in two leads for 72 h. Our study compared the arrhythmia detection by WebCardio and conventional Holter by simultaneously connecting both for 24 h in patients having indication for AECG.MethodsThe AECG of patients who had simultaneous recording with WebCardio and conventional Holter, in the department of Cardiology, Medical College, Thrissur were evaluated. Ability to detect any of the 6 arrhythmias :1) atrial fibrillation (AF), 2) atrioventricular (AV) block, 3) sinus pause of ≥3 s (SP), 4) supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), 5) premature ventricular complex (PVC) and 6) ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) was compared. Detection of each arrhythmia was also compared.Results141 patients had simultaneous recordings by both systems of AECG. The WebCardio picked up at least one of the 6 arrhythmias; AF, AV block, SP, SVT, PVC or VT/VF in 98 cases compared to 88 in the Holter (McNemars test, two tail P = 0.006). In eleven cases WebCardio detected an arrhythmia where Holter could not. In one case Holter identified an arrhythmia and WebCardio could not. Individual arrhythmias; AF, SP, SVT and VT/VF were detected equally by both systems. AV block (23 Vs 18, p = 0.0625) and PVCs (83 Vs 74, p = 0.0636) were detected in more number of cases in WebCardio. In the five cases where WebCardio alone identified AV block, four had poor quality of P wave in the Holter.ConclusionArrhythmia was picked up in more number of patients by the WebCardio compared to Holter. This was due to higher pickup of AV block and PVCs by WebCardio. Difference in AV block identification was due to better quality of P in WebCardio. WebCardio is a good alternative to Holter for AECG.     

Zinc levels of patients with a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection at hospital admission and after 4th days of ward hospitalization and their clinical outcome

BackgroundPrevious studies associate the disturbance of the Zinc (Zn) status with the severity of the disease and the inflammatory process in the critically ill patient. This decrease in Zn concentrations is an indicator of poor prognosis. Our aim was to evaluate Zn levels at admission and after four days, and to study if lower Zn levels at those days were related to a worse clinical outcome.Material and methodsObservational cohort study at a tertiary Hospital. Recruitment period: 09/04/2020–04/24/2021. Clinical information on hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or bronchial asthma was collected. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 Kg/m2. Blood extraction was performed at admission and after 4 days. Zn was measured by atomic absorption using a flame method. Worse clinical outcome was defined as death during admission, intensive critical care unit admission or receiving supplemental oxygen through noninvasive or invasive ventilator care.Results129 subjects were invited to participate but only 100 subjects completed the survey. According to ROC curve [AUC= 0.63 (95% CI 0.60–0.66)], Zn < 79 μg/dL showed the best performance to detect a worse outcome (Sn=0.85; Sp=0.36). Patients with Zn < 79 μg/dL were older (70 vs 61 y; p = 0.002) with no differences by sex. Most patients presented with fever, dysthermic symptoms and cough, without differences between groups. Pre-existing comorbid conditions did not differ significantly between groups. Less obese subjects were found in the Zn < 79 μg/dL group (21.4 vs 43.3%, p = 0.025). In the univariate analysis, Zn < 79 μg/dL at hospital admission was related to a worse outcome (p = 0.044), but after adjusting for age, C-reactive protein, and obesity there was no difference, but a tendency towards a worse prognosis [OR 2.20 (0.63–7.70), p = 0.215]. Zn levels increased in both groups after 4 days (66.6 vs 73.1 μg/dL at admission, and 72.2 vs 80.5 μg/dL at 4th day), with ns. difference (p = 0.214).ConclusionZn < 79 μg/dL at admission for a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection could be related to a worse outcome, although after adjustment for age, C-reactive protein levels and obesity, this Zn level threshold did not show statistically significant difference in the composite end point, but a tendency towards a worse prognosis. In addition, patients with the best clinical evolution showed higher serum Zn levels at 4th day after hospital admission than the patients with a worse prognosis.     

Prevalence and characteristics of malaria among COVID-19 individuals: A systematic review,meta-analysis,and analysis of case reports

BackgroundThe world population is currently at a very high risk of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). People who live in malaria-endemic areas and get infected by SARS-CoV-2 may be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 or unfavorable disease outcomes if they ignore their malaria status. Therefore, the present study aimed to synthesize, qualitatively and quantitatively, information on the prevalence and characteristics of malaria infection among COVID-19-infected individuals. The findings will help us better understand this particular comorbidity during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number: CRD42021247521. We searched for studies reporting on the coinfection of COVID-19 and malaria in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27, 2021 using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. The study’s methodological quality in the search output was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools for cross-sectional study. The pooled prevalence of Plasmodium spp. infection among patients infected with COVID-19 was estimated using the random effect model and then graphically presented as forest plots. The heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using Cochrane Q and I² statistics. The characteristics of patients co-infected with COVID-19 and malaria were derived from case reports and series and were formally analyzed using simple statistics.ResultsTwelve of 1,207 studies reporting the coinfection of COVID-19 and malaria were selected for further analysis. Results of quantitative synthesis show that the pooled prevalence of Plasmodium spp. infection (364 cases) among COVID–19 individuals (1,126 cases) is 11%, with a high degree of heterogeneity (95% CI: 4%–18%, I²: 97.07%, 5 studies). Most of the coinfections were reported in Nigeria (336 cases), India (27 cases), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1 case). Results of qualitative synthesis indicate that patients with coinfection are typically symptomatic at presentation with mild or moderate parasitemia. An analysis of case reports and series indicates that co-infected individuals often display thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, and elevated bilirubin levels. Among four patients (30%) who required treatment with intravenous artesunate, one experienced worsened clinical status after administering the drug. One serious outcome of coinfection involved a pregnant woman who experienced fetal abortion due to the initial misdiagnosis of malaria.ConclusionsAll individuals in malaria-endemic regions who are febrile or display symptoms of COVID-19 should be evaluated for malaria to avoid serious complications. Further prospective studies are required to investigate the burden and outcomes of COVID-19 in malaria-endemic regions. Prompt management is required to prevent serious outcomes in individuals co-infected with COVID-19 and malaria.     

Combination of obesity and co-morbidities leads to unfavorable outcomes in COVID-19 patients

ObjectiveObesity has been described as a significant independent risk factors of COVID-19. We aimed to study the association between obesity, co-morbidities and clinical outcomes of COVID-19.MethodsClinical data from 417 patients were collected retrospectively from the Al Kuwait Hospital, Ministry of Health and Prevention (MOHAP), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, who were admitted between March and June 2020. Patients were divided according to their body mass index (BMI). Various clinical outcomes were examined: presenting symptoms, severity, major co-morbidities, ICU admission, death, ventilation, ARDS, septic shock and laboratory parameters.ResultsThe average BMI was 29 ± 6.2 kg/m². BMI alone was not associated with the outcomes examined. However, class II obese patients had more co-morbidities compared to other groups. Hypertension was the most significant co-morbidity associated with obesity. Patients with BMI above the average BMI (29 kg/m²) and presence of underlying co-morbidities showed significant increase in admission to ICU compared to patients below 29 kg/m² and underlying co-morbidities (21.7% Vs. 9.2%), ARDS development (21.7% Vs. 10.53%), need for ventilation (8.3% Vs. 1.3%), and mortality (10% Vs. 1.3%).ConclusionsOur data suggests that presence of underlying co-morbidities and high BMI work synergistically to affect the clinical outcomes of COVID-19.     

COVID-19 Outcomes of Patients With Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Multicenter Los Angeles Cohort Study

ObjectiveCancer may be a risk factor for worse outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infections. However, there is a significant variability across cancer types in the extent of disease burden and modalities of cancer treatment that may impact morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Therefore, we evaluated COVID-19 outcomes in patients with a differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) history.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of DTC and SARS-CoV2 infection from 2 academic Los Angeles healthcare systems. Demographic, thyroid cancer, and treatment data were analyzed for associations with COVID-19 outcomes.ResultsOf 21 patients with DTC and COVID-19, 8 (38.1%) were hospitalized and 2 (9.5%) died from COVID-19. Thyroid cancer initial disease burden and extent, treatment, or current response to therapy (eg, excellent vs incomplete) were not associated with COVID-19 severity in DTC patients. However, older age and the presence of a comorbidity other than DTC were significantly associated with COVID-19 hospitalization (P = .047 and P = .024, respectively). COVID-19–attributed hospitalization and mortality in DTC patients was lower than that previously reported in cancer patients, although similar to patients with nonthyroid malignancies in these centers.ConclusionThese data suggest that among patients with DTC, advanced age and comorbid conditions are significant contributors to the risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV2 infection, rather than factors associated with thyroid cancer diagnosis, treatment, or disease burden. This multicenter report of clinical outcomes provides additional data to providers to inform DTC patients regarding their risk of COVID-19.     

Correlation of Hemoglobin A1C and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

ObjectiveDiabetes is a known risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted this study to determine if there is a correlation between hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) level and poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with diabetes and COVID-19.MethodsThis is a retrospective, single-center, observational study of patients with diabetes (defined by an HbA1C level of ≥6.5% or known medical history of diabetes) who had a confirmed case of COVID-19 and required hospitalization. All patients were admitted to our institution between March 3, 2020, and May 5, 2020. HbA1C results for each patient were divided into quartiles: 5.1% to 6.7% (32-50 mmol/mol), 6.8% to 7.5% (51-58 mmol/mol), 7.6% to 8.9% (60-74 mmol/mol), and >9% (>75 mmol/mol). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included admission to an intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, acute thrombosis, and length of hospital stay.ResultsA total of 506 patients were included. The number of deaths within quartiles 1 through 4 were 30 (25%), 37 (27%), 34 (27%), and 24 (19%), respectively. There was no statistical difference in the primary or secondary outcomes among the quartiles, except that acute kidney injury was less frequent in quartile 4.ConclusionThere was no significant association between HbA1C level and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes who are hospitalized with COVID-19. HbA1C levels should not be used for risk stratification in these patients.     

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and risk of hospital admission and death among infected cancer patients: A population-based study in northern Italy

BackgroundThe risks of hospital admission for COVID-19-related conditions and all-cause death of SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients were investigated according to vaccination status.MethodsA population-based cohort study was carried out on 9754 infected cancer patients enrolled from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. Subdistribution hazard ratio (SHRs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for sex, age, comorbidity index, and time since cancer incidence, were computed to assess the risk of COVID-19 hospital admission or death of unvaccinated vs. patients with at least one dose of vaccine (i.e., vaccinated).Results2485 unvaccinated patients (25.5 %) were at a 2.57 elevated risk of hospital admission (95 % CI: 2.13–2.87) and at a 3.50 elevated risk of death (95 % CI: 3.19–3.85), as compared to vaccinated patients. Significantly elevated hospitalizations and death risks emerged for both sexes, across all age groups and time elapsed since cancer diagnosis. For unvaccinated patients, SHRs for hospitalization were particularly elevated in those with solid tumors (SHR = 2.69 vs. 1.66 in patients with hematologic tumors) while HRs for the risk of death were homogeneously distributed. As compared to boosted patients, SHRs for hospitalization and HRs for death increased with decreasing number of doses.ConclusionsStudy findings stress the importance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to reduce hospital admission and death risk in cancer patients.     

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease

BackgroundData regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited.ObjectivesTo compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated.ResultsAmong 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54–74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11–1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31–1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90–1.20], p_interaction <0.001).ConclusionsCo-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).     

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has increased barriers to accessing preventive healthcare. This study identifies populations disproportionately underrepresented in screening and surveillance colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsIn this single-center cohort study, colonoscopy procedures were reviewed during 6-month intervals before the pandemic (July 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 and January 1, 2021 - June 30, 2021). 7095 patients were categorized based on procedure indication, demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Statistics performed using VassarStats.Results2387 (2019) colonoscopies pre-pandemic and 2585 (2020) and 2123 (2021) during the pandemic were identified. There was a decrease in colonoscopies performed during months when COVID-19 cases peaked. The total number of average CRC risk patients presenting for first colonoscopy declined during the pandemic: 232 (10 %) pre-pandemic to 190 (7 %) in 2020, 145 (7 %) in 2021 (p < 0.001). Fewer of these patients presented from highly vulnerable communities, SVI > 0.8, during the pandemic, 39 in 2019 vs 16 in 2020 and 22 in 2021. Of all screening and surveillance patients, fewer presented from communities with SVI > 0.8 during the pandemic, 106 in 2019 versus 67 in 2020 and 77 in 2021.ConclusionIt is important to address the decline in CRC preventive care during this pandemic among average CRC risk first-time screeners and vulnerable community patients. An emphasis on addressing social determinants of health and establishing patients in gastroenterology clinics is imperative to promote future health in these populations.     

The effect of silica exposure on the risk of lung cancer: A dose-response meta-analysis

BackgroundThe relationship between silica and the risk of developing lung cancer has been established in previous literature, but how much the level of exposure to silica can increase the risk of lung cancer is a question that has been addressed in this review.MethodsThree electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature. For the dose-response relationship between exposure to silica and developing lung cancer, we performed a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. For each level of exposure, we calculated the overall risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsNineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a positive and significant increasing dose-response trend between silica exposure and the risk of developing lung cancer as follows: < 0.50 mg/m³ 1.14 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.23; I² = 79%), 0.50–0.99 mg/m³ 1.34 (95% CI: 1.05, 171; I² = 45%), 1.00–1.99 mg/m³ 1.14 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.30; I² = 70%), 2.00–2.99 mg/m³ 1.47 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.06; I² = 57%), 3.00–3.99 mg/m³ 1.44 (95% CI: 0.99, 2.11; I² = 58%), and ≥ 4.00 mg/m³ 1.64 (95% CI: 1.20, 2.24; I² = 88%). The heterogeneity across studies was mild to moderate.ConclusionsThe presence of a dose-response relationship favors the causal relationship between exposure to silica and developing lung cancer.