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).     

Pre-Conception Dyslipidemia Is Associated with Development of Preeclampsia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

IntroductionThe association between glucose intolerance, elevated blood pressure and abnormal lipid levels is well established and comprises the basis of metabolic syndrome pathophysiology. We hypothesize that abnormal preconception lipid levels are associated with the increased risk of severe pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus.MethodsWe included all singleton deliveries (n = 27,721) of women without known cardiovascular morbidity and preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus during previous pregnancies. Association between preconception low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc level≤50 mg/dL), high triglycerides (level≥150 mg/dL) and the primary outcome (composite of gestational diabetes mellitus/or preeclampsia) was assessed using Generalized Estimation Equations.ResultsPrimary outcome of preeclampsia and/or gestational diabetes was observed in a total of 3,243 subjects (11.7%). Elevated triglycerides and low HDLc were independently associated with the primary outcome: with odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 (95% CI 1.29–2.01) and OR = 1.33 (95% CI 1.09–1.63), respectively, after adjusting for maternal age, weight, blood pressure, repeated abortions, fertility treatments and fasting glucose. There was an interaction between the effects of HDLc≤50 mg/dL and triglycerides≥150 mg/dL with an OR of 2.69 (95% CI 1.73–4.19).ConclusionsOur analysis showed an increased rate of preeclampsia and/or gestational diabetes in women with low HDLc and high triglycerides values prior to conception. In view of the severity of these pregnancy complications, we believe this finding warrants a routine screening for the abnormal lipid profile among women of a child-bearing age.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of pain,psychological-distress,SARS-CoV2 fear on adults’ OHRQOL during COVID-19 pandemic

Corona virus disease (COVID-19) has crippled life, families and oral health care delivery. Hence, we assessed the impact of dental pain, fear of COVID-19 and psychological distress during lockdown on the oral health related quality of life of individuals visiting a tertiary dental care center during COVID-19 pandemic. Cross sectional study conducted among patients between 18 and 60 years. Demographics, access to pain killers, dental care (yes/no), duration (</> 15 days) and intensity of pain were self reported. Fear of COVID-19 was assessed using fear of corona virus scale (FCV-19S); psychological distress in the last 30 days and oral health related quality of life was evaluated. Oral examination was performed and dental caries status (DMFT) was assessed using the world health organization method. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was conducted to evaluate significant predictors and 5% was set as level of significance. 2966 patients visited our dental emergency due to painful decayed tooth between March-June 2020. Mean age was 42.7 years, 53.97% were males and most common cause of painful teeth was upper right third molar (7.7%). 73.4% reported lack of pain medication; 95% reported closure of dental clinics close to home. Almost 79% suffered from dental pain for >15 days. Higher self reported pain (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.36–14.71), >15 days of suffering from pain (OR 6.8; 95% CI 2.18–23.14), greater fear of COVID-19 (OR 4.14; 95% CI 1.98–16.07) and psychological distress (OR 4.41; 95% CI 1.09–16.76) were associated with poorer OHRQOL of adults during COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings strongly suggest that COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts the mental and oral health of individuals affecting their overall health.     

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on lung cancer patients: A meta-analysis

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the treatment of lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published before March 15, 2022, and Stata 14.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 80 articles with 318,352 patients involved. The proportion of lung cancer patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 2.4% (95% CI: 0.02–0.03) prior to the Omicron variant outbreak. Among COVID-19 patients, those with lung cancer showed a higher mortality rate than those with other types of malignant solid tumors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.61–2.06) and non-cancer patients (OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 3.61–6.05); however, no significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between patients with lung cancer and those with hematologic malignancies (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85–1.33). SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased the mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 8.94, 95% CI: 6.50–12.31). By contrast, the all-cause mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69–1.57) and the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.85–1.27) did not significantly change before and after the pandemic.ConclusionsMore attention should be paid on improving the health of lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Clinical characteristics and analysis of risk factors for disease progression of COVID-19: A retrospective Cohort Study

Objective: Since December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) has been experienced from Wuhan, China to the world. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to summarize the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and to explore the risk factors affecting the disease duration in Jiangan Fangcang shelter hospital, Wuhan, China.Methods: Clinical characteristics of 409 patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed. We describe the clinical characteristics and distribution of discharge time or transfer time for each patient. Then we performed univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify potential risk factors for progression from non-severe to severe COVID-19 or death.Results: The median disease duration of all patients was 23 days (IQR 19-28). The main symptoms of the patient were fever (95.6%), cough (74.3%), tiredness (21.5%), and so on. Comorbidities mainly included hypertension (30.6%) diabetes (17.6%) and heart disease (12.5%). The univariate Cox regression analysis showed that old age, number of symptoms, the combination of hypertension, heart disease and pulmonary disease were associated with the progression of disease. The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that old age (HR: 7.294; 95% CI: 1.442-36.888; P = 0.016), the combination of hypertension (HR: 2.230; 95% CI: 1.090-4.562; P = 0.028) and heart disease (HR: 2.650; 95% CI: 1.079-6.510; P = 0.034) were independent risk factors for progression of COVID-19.Conclusions: The age of the patient, the combination of hypertension and heart disease were independent risk factors for the progression of COVID-19. Cautions should be raised for patients with these risk factors.     

Vitamin D and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity in the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative: A Mendelian randomization study

BackgroundIncreased vitamin D levels, as reflected by 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25OHD) measurements, have been proposed to protect against COVID-19 based on in vitro, observational, and ecological studies. However, vitamin D levels are associated with many confounding variables, and thus associations described to date may not be causal. Vitamin D Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have provided results that are concordant with large-scale vitamin D randomized trials. Here, we used 2-sample MR to assess evidence supporting a causal effect of circulating 25OHD levels on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity.Methods and findingsGenetic variants strongly associated with 25OHD levels in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 443,734 participants of European ancestry (including 401,460 from the UK Biobank) were used as instrumental variables. GWASs of COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and severe disease from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative were used as outcome GWASs. These included up to 14,134 individuals with COVID-19, and up to 1,284,876 without COVID-19, from up to 11 countries. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was determined by laboratory testing or medical chart review. Population controls without COVID-19 were also included in the control groups for all outcomes, including hospitalization and severe disease. Analyses were restricted to individuals of European descent when possible. Using inverse-weighted MR, genetically increased 25OHD levels by 1 standard deviation on the logarithmic scale had no significant association with COVID-19 susceptibility (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI 0.84, 1.08; p = 0.44), hospitalization (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.33; p = 0.41), and severe disease (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.22; p = 0.77). We used an additional 6 meta-analytic methods, as well as conducting sensitivity analyses after removal of variants at risk of horizontal pleiotropy, and obtained similar results. These results may be limited by weak instrument bias in some analyses. Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency.ConclusionsIn this 2-sample MR study, we did not observe evidence to support an association between 25OHD levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, or hospitalization. Hence, vitamin D supplementation as a means of protecting against worsened COVID-19 outcomes is not supported by genetic evidence. Other therapeutic or preventative avenues should be given higher priority for COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

In a Mendelian randomization analysis, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, Tomoki Nakanishi, and colleages study genetic evidence for a relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 outcomes.     

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.     

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.     

Association between Psoriasis Vulgaris and Coronary Heart Disease in a Hospital-Based Population in Japan

BackgroundPsoriasis vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with an immune-genetic background. It has been reported as an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States and Europe. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between psoriasis and CHD in a hospital-based population in Japan.MethodsFor 113,065 in-hospital and clinic patients at our institution between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2013, the diagnostic International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes for CHD, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and psoriasis vulgaris were extracted using the medical accounting system and electronic medical record, and were analyzed.ResultsThe prevalence of CHD (n = 5,167, 4.5%), hypertension (n = 16,476, 14.5%), dyslipidemia (n = 9,236, 8.1%), diabetes mellitus (n = 11,555, 10.2%), and psoriasis vulgaris (n = 1,197, 1.1%) were identified. The prevalence of CHD in patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and psoriasis vulgaris were 21.3%, 22.2%, 21.1%, and 9.0%, respectively. In 1,197 psoriasis patients, those with CHD were older, more likely to be male, and had more number of the diseases surveyed by ICD-10 codes. Multivariate analysis showed that psoriasis vulgaris was an independent associated factor for CHD (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.58; p = 0.0404) along with hypertension (adjusted OR: 7.78; 95% CI: 7.25–8.36; p < 0.0001), dyslipidemia (adjusted OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 2.19–2.52; p < 0.0001), and diabetes (adjusted OR: 2.86; 95% CI: 2.67–3.06; p < 0.0001).ConclusionPsoriasis vulgaris was independently associated with CHD in a hospital-based population in Japan.     

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in Chinese college students

Background: Vaccination is an important preventative measure against the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. To implement vaccination and immunization programs effectively, it is essential to investigate public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. This study examined the attitudes of Chinese college students toward COVID-19 vaccines and their associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in college students nationwide from December 27, 2020 to January 18, 2021. Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and acceptance of future vaccination programs were assessed. Results: Totally, 2,881 college students participated in this survey; of them, 76.3% (95% CI: 74.8% - 77.9%) were willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in the future. Multiple logistic analysis revealed that students living in urban (OR=1.409, 95% CI: 1.152 - 1.724, p=0.001) and those studying health-related courses (OR=1.581, 95% CI: 1.291 - 1.935, p<0.001) were more likely to have a positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, those who were worried about being infected with COVID-19 (very much vs no, OR=1.690, 95% CI: 1.212-2.356, p=0.002), heard previously about COVID-19 vaccines (OR=1.659, 95% CI: 1.268-2.170, p<0.001), believed that vaccines are safe (Yes vs No, OR=3.570, 95% CI: 1.825-6.980), thought that vaccines can protect people from being infected with COVID-19 (Yes vs No, OR=1.957, 95% CI: 1.286-2.979, p=0.002), and had encouraged their family and friends to have a vaccine (Yes vs No, OR=17.745, 95% CI: 12.271-25.660, p<0.001) had higher acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: A high rate of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines was found among Chinese college students. However, vaccine uptake may be reduced by concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. Alleviating these concerns and enhancing public confidence in vaccines are crucial for future immunization programs against the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Resiliencia en las personas mayores durante la primera ola pandémica de la COVID-19 en Chile: una perspectiva desde los determinantes sociales de la salud

ObjectiveTo assess the association between social determinants of health (SDH) and resilience in older people during the first period of confinement in the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile.Materials and methodsAn observational study with a cross-sectional design was conducted using a nationally representative survey data-set. In this survey, using a systematic randomization process, a subsample of people aged ≥60 years from the community were interviewed by telephone during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. Resilience was assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) and depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scale. The SDH considered were: age, sex, educational level, employment status, social isolation, loneliness, discontent with housing and health care needs.ResultsA total sample of 582 persons was obtained. The mean age was 71 years (SD: 7.64; 69% women). A significant association was obtained between low resilience and the following conditions: loneliness (OR: 1.776 [95% CI: 1.146–2.751]), high risk of social isolation (OR: 1.667 [95% CI: 1.149-2.419]), and depressive symptoms (OR: 2.602 [95% CI: 1.795-3.774]). Female gender was a protective factor (OR: 0.589 [95% CI: 0.406-0.855]).ConclusionThe SDH, such as loneliness and social isolation, are factors associated with low resilience in older people during the COVID-19 pandemic and may be taken into account in planning public health intervention strategies.     

Association between use of Qingfei Paidu Tang and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A national retrospective registry study

BackgroundQingfei Paidu Tang (QPT), a formula of traditional Chinese medicine, which was suggested to be able to ease symptoms in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been recommended by clinical guidelines and widely used to treat COVID-19 in China. However, whether it decreases mortality remains unknown.PurposeWe aimed to explore the association between QPT use and in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.Study designA retrospective study based on a real-world database was conducted.MethodsWe identified patients consecutively hospitalized with COVID-19 in 15 hospitals from a national retrospective registry in China, from January through May 2020. Data on patients’ characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were extracted from the electronic medical records. The association of QPT use with COVID-19 related mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models based on propensity score analysis.ResultsOf the 8939 patients included, 28.7% received QPT. The COVID-19 related mortality was 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8% to 1.7%) among the patients receiving QPT and 4.8% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) among those not receiving QPT. After adjustment for patient characteristics and concomitant treatments, QPT use was associated with a relative reduction of 50% in-hospital COVID-19 related mortality (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66 p < 0.001). This association was consistent across subgroups by sex and age. Meanwhile, the incidences of acute liver injury (8.9% [95% CI, 7.8% to 10.1%] vs. 9.9% [95% CI, 9.2% to 10.7%]; odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81% to 1.14%], p = 0.658) and acute kidney injury (1.6% [95% CI, 1.2% to 2.2%] vs. 3.0% [95% CI, 2.6% to 3.5%]; odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17], p = 0.318) were comparable between patients receiving QPT and those not receiving QPT. The major study limitations included that the study was an observational study based on real-world data rather than a randomized control trial, and the quality of data could be affected by the accuracy and completeness of medical records.ConclusionsQPT was associated with a substantially lower risk of in-hospital mortality, without extra risk of acute liver injury or acute kidney injury among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.     

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.     

Comparison of risk factors between human intestinal and gastric Anisakiasis

BackgroundLittle is known in the difference of host factors between intestinal and gastric anisakiasis. The aim of this study was to investigate the associated factors of intestinal anisakiasis in patient's characteristics and the subsequent variation compared to gastric anisakiasis.MethodsAt St. Luke's International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, a retrospective cohort study was conducted from April 2004 to June 2017. All adult patients who were clinically diagnosed as anisakiasis based on Computed Tomography (CT) scan or endoscopy were included, and anti-Anisakis antibodies (IgG and IgA) were measured for serological validation of anisakiasis, strengthen the diagnosis. Anisakiasis was categorized as either intestinal or gastric depending on its affected site. We compared patients' demographics, social history, and physical and laboratory findings between those with intestinal and gastric anisakiasis by bivariate analyses, followed by multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 302 patients were included in this study, where the mean age (SD) was 46.5 (14.4) and 66.6% were male. Ninety-two patients (30.5%) had intestinal anisakiasis. Multivariate regression revealed that patients with intestinal anisakiasis were more 45 years old or older (odds ratio (OR) 3.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.53–7.69), male (OR 2.70, 95% CI: 1.20–6.25) and regular alcohol drinker. In terms of the physical and laboratory findings, patients with intestinal anisakiasis had greater heart rate (OR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.33–6.25), higher total protein (OR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.16–6.67), and higher C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR 11.1, 95% CI: 3.03–33.3).ConclusionsOlder males who were regular alcohol drinkers were associated with intestinal anisakiasis, and often heart rate, total protein, and CRP were elevated compared to those of patients with gastric anisakiasis.     

C-reactive protein as an early predictor of COVID-19 severity

BackgroundData for predicting severity of patients with COVID-19 infection are sparse and still under investigation. We retrospectively studied whether the admission serum C-reactive protein level (CRP) can serve as nearly predictor of disease severity during COVID-19 infection in comparison with other hematologic and inflammatory markers.MethodsWe included all consecutive patients who were admitted in Cheikh Khalifa International University Hospital, Casablanca, Morocco, between February to April 2020, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection using SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleic acid via RT-PCR. The complete blood count and serum CRP level were routinely measured on admission. All clinical and laboratory data of patients were collected and analyzed. The classification of the disease severity was in accordance with the clinical classification of the WHO interim guidance, and the management of patients were adapted to the national management guideline. We estimated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of blood routine parameters as well as their association with COVID-19 disease severity.Results145 COVID-19 patients were included in the study. The median age (range) was 50 (32-63) years, and 75 (51.7%) were men. 101 patients were classified in the non-severe group and 44 patients in the severe group. Based on disease severity, significant differences were observed in the age, gender, comorbidities, and respiratory symptom. Similarly, the biological analysis found significant differences for the neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, eosinophil count, and CRP level. However, according to ROC curves of these laboratory biomarkers, the AUC of CRP at 0.872 was significantly higher than all other parameters. Further, CRP was independently associated with severity of COVID-19 disease (OR = 1.11, 95% IC (1.01-1.22) and or = 1.13, 95% IC (1.04-1.23)).ConclusionsThis study found that the CRP level at admission represent a simple and independent factor that can be useful for early detection of severity during COVID-19 and the easy guidance of primary care.     

Association of Diabetes and Prognosis of Minor Stroke and Its Subtypes: A Prospective Observational Study

BackgroundThe association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and prognosis of minor stroke is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate whether DM contributes to the prognosis of minor stroke or its specific subtype.MethodsAll minor ischemic stroke patients were derived from the China National Stroke Registry and classified into 5 subtypes according to the TOAST (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) criteria. DM was defined as either self-reported physician diagnosis of diabetes or use of hypoglycemic medications during hospitalization or at discharge. Patients were followed up for 1 year for clinical outcomes of recurrent stroke, death and functional outcome. Poor functional outcomes were defined as a score of 2–6 for modified Rankin Score. Associations between DM and prognosis of minor stroke and its subtypes were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 4,548 patients with minor stroke, 1,230(27.0%) patients had DM, 1,038(22.8%) had poor outcomes and 570(13.0%) of 4,401 patients had recurrent stroke at 1 year. In multivariable analyses, DM were significantly associated with 1-year stroke recurrence (Odds Ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.59) and poor outcome (OR, 1.51; 95%CI: 1.28–1.77). Among the subtypes of minor stroke, DM was only significantly associated with 1-year stroke recurrence (OR, 1.63; 95%CI: 1.07–2.50) and poor outcome (OR, 1.73; 95%CI: 1.22–2.45) in the small-artery occlusion subtype.ConclusionsDM significantly increased the risk of stroke recurrence and poor outcome in the small-artery occlusion subtype, but not in other subtypes of minor stroke.