Cardiometabolic risk factors for COVID-19 susceptibility and severity: A Mendelian randomization analysis

BackgroundEpidemiological studies report associations of diverse cardiometabolic conditions including obesity with COVID-19 illness, but causality has not been established. We sought to evaluate the associations of 17 cardiometabolic traits with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity using 2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses.Methods and findingsWe selected genetic variants associated with each exposure, including body mass index (BMI), at p < 5 × 10⁻⁸ from genome-wide association studies (GWASs). We then calculated inverse-variance-weighted averages of variant-specific estimates using summary statistics for susceptibility and severity from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative GWAS meta-analyses of population-based cohorts and hospital registries comprising individuals with self-reported or genetically inferred European ancestry. Susceptibility was defined as testing positive for COVID-19 and severity was defined as hospitalization with COVID-19 versus population controls (anyone not a case in contributing cohorts). We repeated the analysis for BMI with effect estimates from the UK Biobank and performed pairwise multivariable MR to estimate the direct effects and indirect effects of BMI through obesity-related cardiometabolic diseases. Using p < 0.05/34 tests = 0.0015 to declare statistical significance, we found a nonsignificant association of genetically higher BMI with testing positive for COVID-19 (14,134 COVID-19 cases/1,284,876 controls, p = 0.002; UK Biobank: odds ratio 1.06 [95% CI 1.02, 1.10] per kg/m²; p = 0.004]) and a statistically significant association with higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (6,406 hospitalized COVID-19 cases/902,088 controls, p = 4.3 × 10⁻⁵; UK Biobank: odds ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.07, 1.21] per kg/m², p = 2.1 × 10⁻⁵). The implied direct effect of BMI was abolished upon conditioning on the effect on type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. No other cardiometabolic exposures tested were associated with a higher risk of poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Small study samples and weak genetic instruments could have limited the detection of modest associations, and pleiotropy may have biased effect estimates away from the null.ConclusionsIn this study, we found genetic evidence to support higher BMI as a causal risk factor for COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. These results raise the possibility that obesity could amplify COVID-19 disease burden independently or through its cardiometabolic consequences and suggest that targeting obesity may be a strategy to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Aaron Leong and co-workers investigate causal risk factors for COVID-10 illness and severity.     

Vitamin D levels and risk of type 1 diabetes: A Mendelian randomization study

BackgroundVitamin D deficiency has been associated with type 1 diabetes in observational studies, but evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. The aim of this study was to test whether genetically decreased vitamin D levels are causally associated with type 1 diabetes using Mendelian randomization (MR).Methods and findingsFor our two-sample MR study, we selected as instruments single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are strongly associated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels in a large vitamin D genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 443,734 Europeans and obtained their corresponding effect estimates on type 1 diabetes risk from a large meta-analysis of 12 type 1 diabetes GWAS studies (Ntot = 24,063, 9,358 cases, and 15,705 controls). In addition to the main analysis using inverse variance weighted MR, we applied 3 additional methods to control for pleiotropy (MR-Egger, weighted median, and mode-based estimate) and compared the respective MR estimates. We also undertook sensitivity analyses excluding SNPs with potential pleiotropic effects. We identified 69 lead independent common SNPs to be genome-wide significant for 25OHD, explaining 3.1% of the variance in 25OHD levels. MR analyses suggested that a 1 standard deviation (SD) decrease in standardized natural log-transformed 25OHD (corresponding to a 29-nmol/l change in 25OHD levels in vitamin D–insufficient individuals) was not associated with an increase in type 1 diabetes risk (inverse-variance weighted (IVW) MR odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.40, p = 0.48). We obtained similar results using the 3 pleiotropy robust MR methods and in sensitivity analyses excluding SNPs associated with serum lipid levels, body composition, blood traits, and type 2 diabetes. Our findings indicate that decreased vitamin D levels did not have a substantial impact on risk of type 1 diabetes in the populations studied. Study limitations include an inability to exclude the existence of smaller associations and a lack of evidence from non-European populations.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that 25OHD levels are unlikely to have a large effect on risk of type 1 diabetes, but larger MR studies or RCTs are needed to investigate small effects.

Despoina Manousaki and co-workers investigate vitamin D levels and risk of type I diabetes.     

Association of Vitamin D Status With Hospital Morbidity and Mortality in Adult Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

ObjectiveTo determine the association between vitamin D status and morbidity and mortality in adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patientsMethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review study in COVID-19 patients aged ≥18 year hospitalized at Boston University Medical Center between March 1 and August 4, 2020. All studied patients tested positive for COVID-19 and had serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) results measured within 1 year prior to the date of positive tests. Medical information was retrieved from the electronic medical record and was analyzed to determine the association between vitamin D status and hospital morbidity and mortality.ResultsAmong the 287 patients, 100 (36%) were vitamin D sufficient (25[OH]D >30 ng/mL) and 41 (14%) died during hospitalization. Multivariate analysis in patients aged ≥65 years revealed that vitamin D sufficiency (25[OH]D ≥30 ng/mL) was statistically significantly associated with decreased odds of death (adjusted OR 0.33, 95% CI, 0.12-0.94), acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.05-0.96), and severe sepsis/septic shock (adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.08-0.88), after adjustment for potential confounders. Among patients with body mass index <30 kg/m², vitamin D sufficiency was statistically significantly associated with a decreased odds of death (adjusted OR 0.18, 95% CI, 0.04-0.84). No significant association was found in the subgroups of patients aged <65 years or with body mass index ≥30 kg/m².ConclusionWe revealed an independent association between vitamin D sufficiency defined by serum 25(OH)D ≥30 ng/mL and decreased risk of mortality from COVID-19 in elderly patients and patients without obesity.     

Vitamin D and Risk of Multiple Sclerosis: A Mendelian Randomization Study

BackgroundObservational studies have demonstrated an association between decreased vitamin D level and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS); however, it remains unclear whether this relationship is causal. We undertook a Mendelian randomization (MR) study to evaluate whether genetically lowered vitamin D level influences the risk of MS.ConclusionsA genetically lowered 25OHD level is strongly associated with increased susceptibility to MS. Whether vitamin D sufficiency can delay, or prevent, MS onset merits further investigation in long-term randomized controlled trials.     

Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization identifies causal links between blood proteins and severe COVID-19

In November 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic death toll surpassed five million individuals. We applied Mendelian randomization including >3,000 blood proteins as exposures to identify potential biomarkers that may indicate risk for hospitalization or need for respiratory support or death due to COVID-19, respectively. After multiple testing correction, using genetic instruments and under the assumptions of Mendelian Randomization, our results were consistent with higher blood levels of five proteins GCNT4, CD207, RAB14, C1GALT1C1, and ABO being causally associated with an increased risk of hospitalization or respiratory support/death due to COVID-19 (ORs = 1.12–1.35). Higher levels of FAAH2 were solely associated with an increased risk of hospitalization (OR = 1.19). On the contrary, higher levels of SELL, SELE, and PECAM-1 decrease risk of hospitalization or need for respiratory support/death (ORs = 0.80–0.91). Higher levels of LCTL, SFTPD, KEL, and ATP2A3 were solely associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (ORs = 0.86–0.93), whilst higher levels of ICAM-1 were solely associated with a decreased risk of respiratory support/death of COVID-19 (OR = 0.84). Our findings implicate blood group markers and binding proteins in both hospitalization and need for respiratory support/death. They, additionally, suggest that higher levels of endocannabinoid enzymes may increase the risk of hospitalization. Our research replicates findings of blood markers previously associated with COVID-19 and prioritises additional blood markers for risk prediction of severe forms of COVID-19. Furthermore, we pinpoint druggable targets potentially implicated in disease pathology.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BackgroundNumerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective.Methods and findingsWe carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527).ConclusionsIn this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

In this meta-analysis, Min Seo Kim and colleagues synthesise results from randomized trials and observational studies on COVID-19 treatments.     

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).     

Early versus deferred anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial

BackgroundConvalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression.Methods and findingsThe study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19–2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion.ConclusionsIn the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration.Trial registration{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04375098","term_id":"NCT04375098"}}NCT04375098.

In this randomized trial, María Elvira Balcells and colleagues demonstrate that there is no benefit in immediate versus delayed convalescent plasma administration for COVID-19 patients.     

Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: A nationwide online survey in China

BackgroundThis study attempts to understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine demand and hesitancy by assessing the public’s vaccination intention and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Confidence in COVID-19 vaccines produced in China and preference for domestically-made or foreign-made vaccines was also investigated.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional, self-administered online survey was conducted on 1–19 May 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used as a theoretical framework for understanding COVID-19 vaccination intent and WTP.ResultsA total of 3,541 complete responses were received. The majority reported a probably yes intent (54.6%), followed by a definite yes intent (28.7%). The perception that vaccination decreases the chances of getting COVID-19 under the perceived benefit construct (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 2.05–4.83) and not being concerned about the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines under the perceived barriers construct (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.31–2.09) were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of WTP for COVID-19 vaccine was CNY¥200/US$28 (IQR CNY¥100–500/USD$14–72). The highest marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by socio-economic factors. The majority were confident (48.7%) and completely confident (46.1%) in domestically-made COVID-19 vaccine. 64.2% reported a preference for a domestically-made over foreign-made COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intent and WTP. It is important to improve health promotion and reduce the barriers to COVID-19 vaccination.     

Diagnosis-wide analysis of COVID-19 complications: an exposure-crossover study

BACKGROUND:Many studies reporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications have involved case series or small cohorts that could not establish a causal association with COVID-19 or provide risk estimates in different care settings. We sought to study all possible complications of COVID-19 to confirm previously reported complications and to identify potential complications not yet known.METHODS:Using United States health claims data, we compared the frequency of all International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes occurring before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in an exposure-crossover design. We included patients who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Mar. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2020, and computed risk estimates and odds ratios (ORs) of association with COVID-19 for every ICD-10-CM diagnosis code.RESULTS:Among 70 288 patients with COVID-19, 69 of 1724 analyzed ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes were significantly associated with COVID-19. Disorders showing both strong association with COVID-19 and high absolute risk included viral pneumonia (OR 177.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 147.19–214.37, absolute risk 27.6%), respiratory failure (OR 11.36, 95% CI 10.74–12.02, absolute risk 22.6%), acute kidney failure (OR 3.50, 95% CI 3.34–3.68, absolute risk 11.8%) and sepsis (OR 4.23, 95% CI 4.01–4.46, absolute risk 10.4%). Disorders showing strong associations with COVID-19 but low absolute risk included myocarditis (OR 8.17, 95% CI 3.58–18.62, absolute risk 0.1%), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR 11.83, 95% CI 5.26–26.62, absolute risk 0.1%) and pneumothorax (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.68–4.26, absolute risk 0.4%).INTERPRETATION:We confirmed and provided risk estimates for numerous complications of COVID-19. These results may guide prognosis, treatment decisions and patient counselling.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain of coronavirus that has been identified as the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As of Nov. 20, 2020, more than 50 million people have received a diagnosis of COVID-19 globally.¹ The clinical spectrum of disease is wide and can range from symptoms typical of the common cold to respiratory failure and death.² Most patients have mild symptoms and can be managed as outpatients, but as many as 20% have a severe form of the disease requiring admission to hospital, commonly presenting with hypoxia secondary to pneumonia.³Studies also show that COVID-19 is associated with a wide variety of nonrespiratory sequelae, including endothelial, thrombotic, cardiac, inflammatory, neurologic and other complications. ^4–9 Whether these associations are causal is not well established, as many of these findings originate from case reports, which are prone to publication bias and cannot provide risk estimates, or from cohort studies that often do not provide relative risk estimates.An alternative strategy for identifying potential complications of COVID-19 is studying all possible complications as captured in International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) diagnosis codes, which allows for the discovery of unreported complications and can confirm previously identified ones. The objective of our study was to analyze all diagnoses associated with COVID-19, to identify those that could be complications of the disease and to present both the absolute risk and relative odds of any complications identified.     

Clinical characteristics,risk factors,and rate of severity of a nationwide COVID-19 Saudi cohort

ObjectiveTo evaluate COVID19 patients’ clinical characteristics, risk factors, and COVID-19 severity at baseline and over one month following hospitalization.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study of 598 Saudi COVID19 patients recruited from 4 major medical institutions nationwide between June 01, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Patients were stratified into different demographic characteristics and COVID-19 severity scale.ResultsOf the 598 hospitalized adult COVID19 patients (mean [range] age, 57 [46 to 65] years; 59% male), 300 (50.16%) had severe clinical COVID-19. Comorbidity was high among hospitalized patients (73.5 %), with diabetes mellitus (n=; 46%) and hypertension (n=; 41%) being the most common prevalent. In a multivariate logistic regression model, patient demographics and clinical factors such as age (odds ratio [OR], 1.014 per year; 95% CI, 1.003–1.025), male sex (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02–2.62), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06–2.49), obesity (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26–2.94), oxygen saturation<92% (OR, 4.83; 95% CI, 2.96–7.86), and high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (OR, 3.74 per unit; 95% CI, 1.96–7.14) were independently associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Moreover, more than 60% of male patients and middle-aged patients (40–60 years) were associated with the use of COVID-19 medications, including favipiravir and dexamethasone, during their hospital stay. Additionally, the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest in female patients (61.5%) and in middle-aged patients (46.2%). However, the death rate was slightly higher in males (56%) than in female patients and in elderly patients (52%). In Cox proportional analysis, age associated with increased risk of 60-days mortality (Hazard ratio; HR, 1.05 per year; 95% CI, 1.018–1.098). Additionally, the Riyadh region associated with more COVID-19 cases required invasive respiratory support (57.7%) and Jeddah was associated with more deceased COVID-19 cases (44%).ConclusionsThe data shows that comorbidity is associated with hospitalization among COVID-19 patients, which indicates the level of severity. Infection during the winter season (November), male gender, elderly, and those with pre-existing diabetes mellitus or obesity were associated with higher COVID-19 clinical severity.     

Predictors of Severe COVID-19 in Patients With Diabetes: A Multicenter Review

ObjectiveDiabetes is an independent risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. This study aims to elucidate the risk factors predictive of more severe outcomes in patients with diabetes by comparing the clinical characteristics of those requiring inpatient admissions with those who remain outpatient.MethodsA retrospective review identified 832 patients—631 inpatients and 201 outpatients—with diabetes and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result between March 1 and June 15, 2020. Comparisons between the outpatient and inpatient cohorts were conducted to identify risk factors associated with severity of disease determined by admission rate and mortality. Previous dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor use and disease outcomes were analyzed.ResultsRisk factors for increased admission included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; P = .003), the presence of chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.32 [1.26-4.28]; P = .007), and a higher hemoglobin A1c at the time of admission (OR, 1.25 [1.12-1.39]; P < .001). Lower admission rates were seen in those with commercial insurance. Increased mortality was seen in individuals with older age (OR, 1.09 [1.07-1.11]; P < .001), higher body mass index number (OR, 1.04 [1.01-1.07]; P = .003), and higher hemoglobin A1c value at the time of diagnosis of COVID-19 (OR, 1.12 [1.01-1.24]; P = .028) and patients requiring hospitalization. Lower mortality was seen in those with hyperlipidemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor use prior to COVID-19 infection was not associated with a decreased hospitalization rate.ConclusionThis retrospective review offers the first analysis of outpatient predictors for admission rate and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with diabetes.     

High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter,open-label,randomized controlled superiority trial

BackgroundVitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on experimental data and data from small and uncontrolled observational studies. The COvid19 and VITamin d TRIAL (COVIT-TRIAL) study was conducted to test whether a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19 improves, compared to standard-dose cholecalciferol, the 14-day overall survival among at-risk older adults infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Methods and findingsThis multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority trial involved collaboration of 9 medical centers in France. Patients admitted to the hospital units or living in nursing homes adjacent to the investigator centers were eligible if they were ≥65 years, had SARS-CoV-2 infection of less than 3 days, and at least 1 COVID-19 worsening risk factor (among age ≥75 years, SpO2 ≤94%, or PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤300 mm Hg). Main noninclusion criteria were organ failure requiring ICU, SpO2 ≤92% despite 5 L/min oxygen, life expectancy <3 months, vitamin D supplementation >800 IU/day during the preceding month, and contraindications to vitamin D supplements. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either a single oral high-dose (400,000 IU) or standard-dose (50,000 IU) cholecalciferol administered under medical supervision within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but the Steering Committee and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board were masked to the randomization group and outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 14-day overall mortality. Between April 15 and December 17, 2020, of 1,207 patients who were assessed for eligibility in the COVIT-TRIAL study, 254 met eligibility criteria and formed the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 88 (IQR, 82 to 92) years, and 148 patients (58%) were women. Overall, 8 (6%) of 127 patients allocated to high-dose cholecalciferol, and 14 (11%) of 127 patients allocated to standard-dose cholecalciferol died within 14 days (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.99], P = 0.049, after controlling for randomization strata [i.e., age, oxygen requirement, hospitalization, use of antibiotics, anti-infective drugs, and/or corticosteroids] and baseline imbalances in important prognostic factors [i.e., sex, ongoing cancers, profuse diarrhea, and delirium at baseline]). The number needed to treat for one person to benefit (NNTB) was 21 [NNTB 9 to ∞ to number needed to treat for one person to harm (NNTH) 46]. Apparent benefits were also found on 14-day mortality due to COVID-19 (7 (6%) deaths in high-dose group and 14 (11%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86], P = 0.02). The protective effect of the single oral high-dose administration was not sustained at 28 days (19 (15%) deaths in high-dose group and 21 (17%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.36], P = 0.29). High-dose cholecalciferol did not result in more frequent adverse effects compared to the standard dose. The open-label design and limited study power are the main limitations of the study.ConclusionsIn this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we observed that the early administration of high-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 improved overall mortality at day 14. The effect was no longer observed after 28 days.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04344041","term_id":"NCT04344041"}}NCT04344041.

In a randomized trial, Cedric Annweiler and colleagues evaluate whether a single high dose of vitamin D3 improves survival among older adults in France with SARS-CoV-2 infection.     

Disparities in distribution of COVID-19 vaccines across US counties: A geographic information system–based cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has repeatedly called for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine equity. The objective our study was to measure equity in the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to healthcare facilities across the US. Specifically, we tested whether the likelihood of a healthcare facility administering COVID-19 vaccines in May 2021 differed by county-level racial composition and degree of urbanicity.Methods and findingsThe outcome was whether an eligible vaccination facility actually administered COVID-19 vaccines as of May 2021, and was defined by spatially matching locations of eligible and actual COVID-19 vaccine administration locations. The outcome was regressed against county-level measures for racial/ethnic composition, urbanicity, income, social vulnerability index, COVID-19 mortality, 2020 election results, and availability of nontraditional vaccination locations using generalized estimating equations.Across the US, 61.4% of eligible healthcare facilities and 76.0% of eligible pharmacies provided COVID-19 vaccinations as of May 2021. Facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., > 95th county percentile of Black race composition) were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations compared to facilities in counties with <12.5% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., lower than US average), with OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98, p = 0.030. Location of a facility in a rural county (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90, p < 0.001, versus metropolitan county) or in a county in the top quintile of COVID-19 mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.93, p = 0.001, versus bottom 4 quintiles) was associated with decreased odds of serving as a COVID-19 vaccine administration location.There was a significant interaction of urbanicity and racial/ethnic composition: In metropolitan counties, facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., >95th county percentile of Black race composition) had 32% (95% CI 14% to 47%, p = 0.001) lower odds of serving as COVID administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Black population. This association between Black composition and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in rural or suburban counties. In rural counties, facilities in counties with above US average Hispanic population had 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p = 0.002) lower odds of serving as vaccine administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Hispanic population. This association between Hispanic ethnicity and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in metropolitan or suburban counties.Our analyses did not include nontraditional vaccination sites and are based on data as of May 2021, thus they represent the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Our results based on this cross-sectional analysis may not be generalizable to later phases of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution process.ConclusionsHealthcare facilities in counties with higher Black composition, in rural areas, and in hardest-hit communities were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations in May 2021. The lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations among minority populations and rural areas has been attributed to vaccine hesitancy; however, decreased access to vaccination sites may be an additional overlooked barrier.

Inmaculada Hernandez and colleagues investigate the disparities in early-phase distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines across U.S. Counties.     

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.     

The Association Between Severity of Vitamin D Deficiency and Hashimoto's Thyroiditis

ObjectiveThe relation between vitamin D and autoimmune disorders has long been investigated regarding the important roles of this hormone in immune regulation. We evaluated 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) status in subjects with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis (HT) and healthy controls.MethodsGroup-1 included 180 euthyroid patients (123 females/57 males) with HT who were on a stable dose of L-thyroxine (LT). A total of 180 sex-, age-, and body mass index (BMI)-matched euthyroid subjects with newly diagnosed HT were considered as Group-2, and 180 healthy volunteers were enrolled as controls (Group-3). All 540 subjects underwent thyroid ultrasound and were evaluated for serum 25OHD, anti-thyroid peroxidase (anti- TPO), and anti-thyroglobulin (anti-TG) levels.ResultsGroup-1 had the lowest 25OHD levels (11.4 ± 5.2 ng/mL) compared to newly diagnosed HT subjects (Group-2) (13.1 ± 5.9 ng/mL, P = .002) and to control subjects (15.4 ± 6.8 ng/mL, P<.001). Serum 25OHD levels directly correlated with thyroid volume (r = 0.145, P<.001) and inversely correlated with anti-TPO (r = -0.361, P<.001) and anti-TG levels (r = -0.335, P<.001). We determined that 48.3% of Group-1, 35% of Group-2, and 20.5% of controls had severe 25OHD deficiency (<10 ng/mL). Female chronic HT patients had the lowest serum 25OHD levels (10.3 ± 4.58 ng/mL), and male control subjects had the highest (19.3 ± 5.9 ng/mL, P<.001).ConclusionsWe demonstrated that serum 25OHD levels of HT patients were significantly lower than controls, and 25OHD deficiency severity correlated with duration of HT, thyroid volume, and antibody levels. These findings may suggest a potential role of 25OHD in development of HT and/or its progression to hypothyroidism. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:479-484)     

Sick Euthyroid Syndrome on Presentation of Patients With COVID-19: A Potential Marker for Disease Severity

ObjectivePrecise risk stratification and triage of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are essential in the setting of an overwhelming pandemic burden. Clinical observation has shown a somewhat high prevalence of sick euthyroid syndrome among patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of free triiodothyronine (FT3) at the clinical presentation of COVID-19 for disease severity and death.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was based on electronic medical records. The study was conducted at Sheba Medical Centre, a tertiary hospital where several acute and chronic wards have been dedicated to the treatment of patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome measure was death during hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization in intensive care, mechanical ventilation, and length of hospitalization.ResultsOf a total of 577 polymerase chain reaction-positive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between February 27 and July 30, 2020, 90 had at least 1 measurement of thyroid-stimulating hormone, free thyroxine, and FT3 within 3 days of presentation. After applying strict exclusion criteria, 54 patients were included in the study. Patients in the lowest tertile of FT3 had significantly higher rates of mortality (40%, 5.9%, and 5.9%, P = .008), mechanical ventilation (45%, 29.4%, and 0.0%; P = .007) and intensive care unit admission (55%, 29.4%, and 5.9%, P = .006). In multivariate analyses adjusted for age, Charlson comorbidity index, creatinine, albumin, and white blood cell count. FT3 remained a significant independent predictor of death.ConclusionFT3 levels can serve as a prognostic tool for disease severity in the early presentation of COVID-19.     

Income differences in COVID-19 incidence and severity in Finland among people with foreign and native background: A population-based cohort study of individuals nested within households

BackgroundAlthough intrahousehold transmission is a key source of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, studies to date have not analysed socioeconomic risk factors on the household level or household clustering of severe COVID-19. We quantify household income differences and household clustering of COVID-19 incidence and severity.Methods and findingsWe used register-based cohort data with individual-level linkage across various administrative registers for the total Finnish population living in working-age private households (N = 4,315,342). Incident COVID-19 cases (N = 38,467) were identified from the National Infectious Diseases Register from 1 July 2020 to 22 February 2021. Severe cases (N = 625) were defined as having at least 3 consecutive days of inpatient care with a COVID-19 diagnosis and identified from the Care Register for Health Care between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020. We used 2-level logistic regression with individuals nested within households to estimate COVID-19 incidence and case severity among those infected.Adjusted for age, sex, and regional characteristics, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.77, p < 0.001, 28.4% of infections) among individuals in the lowest household income quintile than among those in the highest quintile (18.9%). The difference attenuated (OR 1.23, 1.16 to 1.30, p < 0.001) when controlling for foreign background but not when controlling for other household-level risk factors. In fact, we found a clear income gradient in incidence only among people with foreign background but none among those with native background. The odds of severe illness among those infected were also higher in the lowest income quintile (OR 1.97, 1.52 to 2.56, p < 0.001, 28.0% versus 21.6% in the highest quintile), but this difference was fully attenuated (OR 1.08, 0.77 to 1.52, p = 0.64) when controlling for other individual-level risk factors—comorbidities, occupational status, and foreign background. Both incidence and severity were strongly clustered within households: Around 77% of the variation in incidence and 20% in severity were attributable to differences between households. The main limitation of our study was that the test uptake for COVID-19 may have differed between population subgroups.ConclusionsLow household income appears to be a strong risk factor for both COVID-19 incidence and case severity, but the income differences are largely driven by having foreign background. The strong household clustering of incidence and severity highlights the importance of household context in the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19 outcomes.

Sanni Saarinen and colleagues explore the association between income differences and COVID-19 incidence and severity among people with foreign and native background in Finland.     

Hyperglycemia is Associated With Increased Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between hyperglycemia in the presence and absence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThe study included 133 patients with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at an urban academic quaternary-care center between March 10 and April 8, 2020. Patients were categorized based on the presence or absence of DM and early-onset hyperglycemia (EHG), defined as a blood glucose >180 mg/dL during the first 2 days after ICU admission. The primary outcome was 14-day all-cause in-hospital mortality; also examined were 60-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and the levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, procalcitonin, and lactate.ResultsCompared to non-DM patients without EHG, non-DM patients with EHG exhibited higher adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality at 14 days (HR 7.51, CI 1.70-33.24) and 60 days (HR 6.97, CI 1.86-26.13). Non-DM patients with EHG also featured higher levels of median C-reactive protein (306.3 mg/L, P = .036), procalcitonin (1.26 ng/mL, P = .028), and lactate (2.2 mmol/L, P = .023).ConclusionAmong critically ill COVID-19 patients, those without DM with EHG were at greatest risk of 14-day and 60-day in-hospital mortality. Our study was limited by its retrospective design and relatively small cohort. However, our results suggest the combination of elevated glucose and lactate may identify a specific cohort of individuals at high risk for mortality from COVID-19. Glucose testing and control are important in individuals with COVID-19, even those without preexisting diabetes.