Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Disease Progression in Severe Patients with COVID-19 Infection in Jiangsu Province, China: A Descriptive Study

Protection effects of mice liver and lung injury induced by coronavirus infection of Qingfei Paidu decoction involve inhibition of the NLRP3 signaling pathway

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a grave and pervasive global infectious malady brought about by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), posing a significant menace to human well-being. Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) represents a pioneering formulation derived from four classical Chinese medicine prescriptions. Substantiated evidence attests to its efficacy in alleviating clinical manifestations, mitigating the incidence of severe and critical conditions, and reducing mortality rates among COVID-19 patients.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study aims to investigate the protection effects of QFPD in mice afflicted with a coronavirus infection, with a particular focus on determining whether its mechanism involves the NLRP3 signaling pathway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The coronavirus mice model was established through intranasal infection of Kunming mice with Hepatic Mouse Virus A59 (MHV-A59). In the dose-effect experiment, normal saline, ribavirin (80 mg/kg), or QFPD (5, 10, 20 g/kg) were administered to the mice 2 h following MHV-A59 infection. In the time-effect experiment, normal saline or QFPD (20 g/kg) was administered to mice 2 h post MHV-A59 infection. Following the assessment of mouse body weights, food consumption, and water intake, intragastric administration was conducted once daily at consistent intervals over a span of 5 days. The impact of QFPD on pathological alterations in the livers and lungs of MHV-A59-infected mice was evaluated through H&E staining. The viral loads of MHV-A59 in both the liver and lung were determined using qPCR. The expression levels of genes and proteins related to the NLRP3 pathway in the liver and lung were assessed through qPCR, Western Blot analysis, and immunofluorescence.

RESULTS

The administration of QFPD was shown to ameliorate the reduced weight gain, decline in food consumption, and diminished water intake, all of which were repercussions of MHV-A59 infection in mice. QFPD treatment exhibited notable efficacy in safeguarding tissue integrity. The extent of hepatic and pulmonary injury, when coupled with QFPD treatment, demonstrated not only a reduction with higher treatment dosages but also a decline with prolonged treatment duration. In the dose-effect experiment, there was a notable, dose-dependent reduction in the viral loads, as well as the expression levels of IL-1β, NLRP3, ASC, Caspase 1, Caspase-1 p20, GSDMD, GSDMD-N, and NF-κB within the liver of the QFPD-treated groups. Additionally, in the time-effects experiments, the viral loads and the expression levels of genes and proteins linked to the NLRP3 pathway were consistently lower in the QFPD-treated groups compared with the model control groups, particularly during the periods when their expressions reached their zenith in the model group. Notably, IL-18 showed only a modest elevation relative to the blank control group following QFPD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

To sum up, our current study demonstrated that QFPD treatment has the capacity to alleviate infection-related symptoms, mitigate tissue damage in infected organs, and suppress viral replication in coronavirus-infected mice. The protective attributes of QFPD in coronavirus-infected mice are plausibly associated with its modulation of the NLRP3 signaling pathway. We further infer that QFPD holds substantial promise in the context of coronavirus infection therapy.

Neurological complications and effects of COVID-19: Symptoms and conceivable mechanisms

A novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 can invade the nervous system aside from infecting the respiratory system as its primary target. The most common nervous system symptoms of COVID-19 are stated as headache, myalgia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, sudden and unexplained anosmia, and ageusia. More severe conditions such as encephalomyelitis, acute myelitis, thromboembolic events, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, Guillain-Barré-syndrome, Bell's palsy, rhabdomyolysis, and even coma have also been reported. Cohort studies revealed that neurological findings are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. The neurological symptoms and manifestations caused by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are examined and summarized in this article.

A look back at the first wave of COVID-19 in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality and health care resource use among severe or critical patients

Background

To investigate the mortality and health care resource use among patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave of pandemic in China.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the mortality, discharge rate, length of hospital stay, and use of invasive ventilation in severe or critical COVID-19 cases in China. We searched electronic databases for studies from China with no restrictions on language or interventions patients received. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. We performed the meta-analysis using random-effect models through a Bayesian framework. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine studies by disease severity, study location and patient enrolment start date. We also performed sensitivity analysis using various priors, and assessed between-study heterogeneity and publication bias for the primary outcomes.

Results

Out of 6,205 titles and abstracts screened, 500 were reviewed in full text. A total of 42 studies were included in the review, of which 95% were observational studies (n = 40). The pooled 28-day and 14-day mortalities among severe or critical patients were 20.48% (7,136 patients, 95% credible interval (CrI), 13.11 to 30.70) and 10.83% (95% CrI, 6.78 to 16.75), respectively. The mortality declined over time and was higher in patients with critical disease than severe cases (1,235 patients, 45.73%, 95% CrI, 22.79 to 73.52 vs. 3,969 patients, 14.90%, 95% CrI, 4.70 to 39.57) and patients in Hubei compared to those outside Hubei (6,719 patients, 26.62%, 95% CrI, 13.11 to 30.70 vs. 244 patients, 5.88%, 95% CrI 2.03 to 14.11). The length of hospital stay was estimated at 18.48 days (6,847 patients, 95% CrI, 17.59 to 21.21), the 28-day discharge rate was 50.48% (3,645 patients, 95% CrI, 26.47 to 79.53), and the use of invasive ventilation rate was 13.46% (4,108 patients, 95% CrI, 7.61 to 22.31).

Conclusions

Our systematic review and meta-analysis found high mortality among severe and critical COVID-19 cases. Severe or critical COVID-19 cases consumed a large amount of hospital resources during the outbreak.

Inflammation/Coagulopathy/Immunology Responsive Index Predicts Poor COVID-19 Prognosis

In the early stage of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), most cases are identified as mild or moderate illnesses. Approximately 20% of hospitalised patients become severe or critical at the middle or late stage of the disease. The predictors and risk factors for prognosis in those with mild or moderate disease remain to be determined. Of 694 patients with COVID-19, 231 patients with mild or moderate disease, who were hospitalised at 10 hospitals in Wenzhou and nearby counties in China, were enrolled in this retrospective study from 17 January to 20 March 2020. The outcomes of these patients included progression from mild/moderate illness to severe or critical conditions. Among the 231 patients, 49 (21.2%) had a poor prognosis in the hospital. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher inflammation/coagulopathy/immunology responsive index (ICIRI=[c-reactive protein × fibrinogen × D-dimer]/CD8 T cell count) on admission (OR=345.151, 95% CI=23.014−5176.318) was associated with increased odds ratios for poor prognosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for ICIRI predicting severe and critical condition progression was 0.65 (95% CI=0.519−0.782) and 0.80 (95% CI=0.647−0.954), with cut-off values of 870.83 and 535.44, respectively. Conversely, age, sex, comorbidity, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, CD8 T cell count, and c-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and D-dimer levels alone at admission were not good predictors of poor prognosis in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. At admission, a novel index, ICIRI, tends to be the most promising predictor of COVID-19 progression from mild or moderate illness to severe or critical conditions.

COVID-19: A pluralistic and integrated approach for efficient management of the pandemic

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which triggered the ongoing pandemic, was first discovered in China in late 2019. SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that often manifests as a pneumonic syndrome. In the context of the pandemic, there are mixed views on the data provided by epidemiologists and the information collected by hospital clinicians about their patients. In addition, the literature reports a large proportion of patients free of pneumonia vs a small percentage of patients with severe pneumonia among confirmed COVID-19 cases. This raises the issue of the complexity of the work required to control or contain the pandemic. We believe that an integrative and pluralistic approach will help to put the analyses into perspective and reinforce collaboration and creativity in the fight against this major scourge. This paper proposes a comprehensive and integrative approach to COVID-19 research, prevention, control, and treatment to better address the pandemic. Thus, this literature review applies a pluralistic approach to fight the pandemic.

Obesity or increased body mass index and the risk of severe outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the effect of obesity or a high body mass index (BMI) on the risk of severe outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Studies on the relationship between BMI or obesity and COVID-19 since December 2019. The odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect size.

RESULTS

BMI was significantly increased in COVID-19 patients with severe illness (WMD: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.42-1.93), who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) (WMD: 1.46; 95% CI: 0.96-1.97), who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (WMD: 2.70, 95% CI: 1.05-4.35) and who died (WMD: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.02-1.80). In Western countries, obesity (BMI of ≥30 kg/m2) increased the risk of hospitalization (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.22-3.54), admission to an ICU (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.29-1.84), need for IMV (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.38-2.17), and mortality (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.74) of patients with COVID-19. In the Asian population, obesity (BMI of ≥28 kg/m2) increased the risk of severe illness (OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.83-5.38). Compared with patients with COVID-19 and a BMI of <25 kg/m2, those with a BMI of 25-30 kg/m2 and ≥30 kg/m2 had a higher risk of need for IMV (OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.30-3.69 and OR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.76-5.28, respectively). The risk of ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 and a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2 was significantly higher than in those with a BMI of 25-30 kg/m2 (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.00-2.21).

CONCLUSION

As BMI increased, the risks of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for IMV increased, especially in COVID-19 patients with obesity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis does not require an ethics approval as it does not collect any primary data from patients.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 as Cause of Viral Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a heterogeneous disease most frequently causing respiratory tract infection, which can induce respiratory failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in its severe forms. The prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis is still unclear; we aimed to describe this in a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched based on a prespecified protocol (International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews: CRD42020202018).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting on patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosed with sepsis according to sepsis-3 or according to the presence of infection-related organ dysfunctions necessitating organ support/replacement were included in the analysis. The primary end point was prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis among adults hospitalized in the ICU and the general ward. Among secondary end points were the need for ICU admission among patients initially hospitalized in the general ward and the prevalence of new onset of organ dysfunction in the ICU. Outcomes were expressed as proportions with respective 95% CI.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened and reviewed existing literature and assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Methodological index for nonrandomized studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 3,825 articles, 151 were analyzed, only five of which directly reported sepsis prevalence. Noting the high heterogeneity observed, coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis prevalence was 77.9% (95% CI, 75.9-79.8; I2 = 91%; 57 studies) in the ICU, and 33.3% (95% CI, 30.3-36.4; I2 = 99%; 86 studies) in the general ward. ICU admission was required for 17.7% (95% CI, 12.9-23.6; I2 = 100%) of ward patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was the most common organ dysfunction in the ICU (87.5%; 95% CI, 83.3-90.7; I2 = 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized in the ICU meet Sepsis-3 criteria and present infection-associated organ dysfunction. The medical and scientific community should be aware and systematically report viral sepsis for prognostic and treatment implications.

Role of proning and positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19

The novel coronavirus, which was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in early 2020 has brought with itself major morbidity and mortality. It has increased hospital occupancy, heralded economic turmoil, and the rapid transmission and community spread have added to the burden of the virus. Most of the patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute hypoxic respiratory failure often secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Based on the limited data available, there have been different opinions about the respiratory mechanics of the ARDS caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our article provides an insight into COVID-19 pathophysiology and how it differs from typical ARDS. Based on these differences, our article explains the different approach to ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS compared to typical ARDS. We critically analyze the role of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and proning in the ICU patients. Through the limited data and clinical experience are available, we believe that early proning in COVID-19 patients improves oxygenation and optimal PEEP should be titrated based on individual lung compliance.

Neurological Manifestations in COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Common symptoms such as dizziness, headache, olfactory dysfunction, nausea, vomiting, etc. in COVID-19 patients have indicated the involvement of the nervous system. However, the exact association of the nervous system with COVID-19 infection is still unclear. Thus, we have conducted a meta-analysis of clinical studies associated with neurological problems in COVID-19 patients. We have searched for electronic databases with MeSH terms, and the studies for analysis were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality assessment. The Stats Direct (version 3) was used for the analysis. The pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval of various neurological manifestations reported in the COVID-19 patients was found to be headache 14.6% (12.2-17.2), fatigue 33.6% (29.5-37.8), olfactory dysfunction 26.4% (21.8-31.3), gustatory dysfunction 27.2% (22.3-32.3), vomiting 6.7% (5.5-8.0), nausea 9.8% (8.1-11.7), dizziness 6.7% (4.7-9.1), myalgia 21.4% (18.8-24.1), seizure 4.05% (2.5-5.8), cerebrovascular diseases 9.9% (6.8-13.4), sleep disorders 14.9% (1.9-36.8), altered mental status 17.1% (12.3-22.5), neuralgia 2.4% (0.8-4.7), arthralgia 19.9% (15.3-25.0), encephalopathy 23.5% (14.3-34.1), encephalitis 0.6% (0.2-1.3), malaise 38.3% (24.7-52.9), confusion 14.2% (6.9-23.5), movement disorders 5.2% (1.7-10.4), and Guillain-Barre syndrome 6.9% (2.3-13.7). However, the heterogeneity among studies was found to be high. Various neurological manifestations related to the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) are associated with COVID-19 patients.

Diabetes is most important cause for mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was officially documented in Europe at the end of February 2020. Despite many observations, the real impact of COVID-19 in the European Union (EU), its underlying factors and their contribution to mortality and morbidity outcomes were never systematically investigated. The aim of the present work is to provide an overview and a meta-analysis of main predictors and of country differences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-associated mortality rate (MR) in hospitalized patients. Out of 3714 retrieved articles, 87 studies were considered, including 35,486 patients (mean age 60.9 ± 8.2 years) and 5867 deaths. After adjustment for confounders, diabetes mellitus was the best predictors of MR in an age- and sex-dependent manner, followed by chronic pulmonary obstructive diseases and malignancies. In both the US and Europe, MR was higher than that reported in Asia (25[20;29] % and 20[17;23] % vs. 13[10;17]%; both p < 0.02). Among clinical parameters, dyspnea, fatigue and myalgia, along with respiratory rate, emerged as the best predictors of MR. Finally, reduced lymphocyte and platelet count, along with increased D-dimer levels, all significantly contributed to increased mortality. The optimization of glucose profile along with an adequate thrombotic complications preventive strategy must become routine practice in diseased SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

Current COVID-19 treatments: Rapid review of the literature

BACKGROUND

As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread worldwide, it has already resulted in over 110 million cases and 2.5 million deaths. Currently, there are no effective COVID-19 treatments, although numerous studies are under way. SARS-CoV-2, however, is not the first coronavirus to cause serious outbreaks. COVID-19 can be compared with previous human coronavirus diseases, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), to better understand the development of treatments.

METHODS

Databases Medline, Embase and WHO COVID-19 was systematically searched on 9 February 2021 for studies reporting on therapeutic effect of COVID-19 treatments. Clinical trials, case reports, observational studies and systematic reviews in the English language were eligible.

RESULTS

1416 studies were identified and 40 studies were included in this review. Therapies included are: remdesivir, convalescent plasma, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ ritonavir, interferon, corticosteroids, cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. Remdesivir, convalescent plasma and interferon seems to provide some clinical benefits such as faster recovery time and reduced mortality, but these effects are not clinically significant. Some corticosteroids are effective in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine do not convey any beneficial, and therapies such as cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies were also not effective and require further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no single therapy effective against COVID-19. However, a combination of therapies administered at different stages of infection may provide some benefit. This conclusion is reflected in the limited effects of these treatments in previous human coronaviruses.

Awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients for the management of hypoxemia in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) may lead to hypoxemia, requiring intensive care in many patients. Awake prone positioning (PP) is reported to improve oxygenation and is a relatively safe modality. We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the available evidence and performed meta-analysis of the effect of awake PP in non-intubated patients on improvement in oxygenation and reducing the need for intubation. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies using awake PP as a therapeutic strategy in the management of COVID-19. Studies were included if they reported respiratory outcomes and included five or more subjects. The quality of individual studies was assessed by the Qualsyst tool. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the proportion of patients requiring intubation. The degree of improvement in oxygenation parameters (PaO2: FiO2 or PaO2 or SpO2) was also calculated. Sixteen studies (seven prospective trials, three before-after studies, six retrospective series) were selected for review. The pooled proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation was 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.34). There was a significant improvement in PaO2: FiO2 ratio, PaO2, and SpO2 during awake PP. To conclude, there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of awake PP for the management of hypoxemia in COVID-19. Further RCTs are required to study the impact of awake PP on key parameters like avoidance of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and mortality.

Evaluation of the Current Therapeutic Approaches for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis

Background: Limited data on the efficacy and safety of currently applied COVID-19 therapeutics and their impact on COVID-19 outcomes have raised additional concern. Objective and Methods: To estimate the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 therapeutics, we performed meta-analyses of the studies reporting clinical features and treatments of COVID-19 published from January 21 to September 6, 2020. Results: We included 136 studies that involved 102,345 COVID-19 patients. The most prevalent treatments were antibiotics (proportion: 0.59, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.67]) and antivirals (proportion: 0.52, 95% CI: [0.44, 0.60]). The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and Arbidol was the most effective in treating COVID-19 (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.68, 95% CI: [0.15, 1.21]). The use of corticosteroids was associated with a small clinical improvement (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI: [-0.85, -0.23]), but with a higher risk of disease progression and death (mortality: RR = 9.26, 95% CI: [4.81, 17.80]; hospitalization length: RR = 1.54, 95% CI: [1.39, 1.72]; severe adverse events: RR = 2.65, 95% CI: [2.09, 3.37]). The use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with a higher risk of death (RR = 1.68, 95% CI: [1.18, 2.38]). The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon-β (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: [0.22, 0.54]); hydroxychloroquine (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.39, 0.58]); and lopinavir/ritonavir (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.56, 0.91]) was associated with reduced hospitalization length. Hydrocortisone (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: [0.03, 0.10]) and remdesivir (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: [0.62, 0.90]) were associated with lower incidence of severe adverse events. Dexamethasone was not significant in reducing disease progression (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.16, 1.25]) and mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: [0.70, 1.16]). The estimated combination of corticosteroids with antivirals was associated with a better clinical improvement than antivirals alone (SMD = -1.09, 95% CI: [-1.64, -0.53]). Conclusion: Antivirals are safe and effective in COVID-19 treatment. Remdesivir cannot significantly reduce COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization length, while it is associated with a lower incidence of severe adverse events. Corticosteroids could increase COVID-19 severity, but it could be beneficial when combined with antivirals. Our data are potentially valuable for the clinical treatment and management of COVID-19 patients.

Gastroenterology manifestations and COVID-19 outcomes: A meta-analysis of 25,252 cohorts among the first and second waves

A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.

Improving Prone Positioning for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic. An Implementation-Mapping Approach

Rationale: Prone positioning reduces mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite this, most patients with ARDS do not receive this lifesaving therapy.Objectives: To identify determinants of prone-positioning use, to develop specific implementation strategies, and to incorporate strategies into an overarching response to the COVID-19 crisis.Methods: We used an implementation-mapping approach guided by implementation-science frameworks. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians who staffed 12 ICUs within the Penn Medicine Health System and the University of Michigan Medical Center. We performed thematic analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We then conducted three focus groups with a task force of ICU leaders to develop an implementation menu, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework. The implementation strategies were adapted as part of the Penn Medicine COVID-19 pandemic response.Results: We identified five broad themes of determinants of prone positioning, including knowledge, resources, alternative therapies, team culture, and patient factors, which collectively spanned all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains. The task force developed five specific implementation strategies, including educational outreach, learning collaborative, clinical protocol, prone-positioning team, and automated alerting, elements of which were rapidly implemented at Penn Medicine.Conclusions: We identified five broad themes of determinants of evidence-based use of prone positioning for severe ARDS and several specific strategies to address these themes. These strategies may be feasible for rapid implementation to increase use of prone positioning for severe ARDS with COVID-19.

Variables Affecting Mortality Among COVID-19 Patients With Lung Involvement Admitted to the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

A cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, turned out to be a highly contagious disease, swept across most of the countries, and soon after was announced as a pandemic. Therefore we aimed to investigate the demographics and factors associated with the disease outcome.

METHODS

In this retrospective chart review, we screened patients admitted to the emergency department with severe acute respiratory infection due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Age, gender, symptoms, laboratory data, and radiology data were obtained, as well as outcomes and length of stay.

RESULTS

We identified 177 patients (54.8% male). Seventy-eight percent of the cases were admitted into wards whereas 22% of the cases were admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU). Twenty-five percent of the cases needed invasive mechanical ventilation during their hospital stay and median length of hospital stay until death or discharge was eight days (interquartile range (IQR) 5.0 - 16.0). Among 177 patients, overall in-hospital mortality rate was 19.8% (n=35; male:female=18:17; p=0.6553). In-hospital mortality rates were statistically significantly higher in patients with higher age (64 vs. 74; p=0.0091), respiratory rate (RR) (28 vs. 36; p=0.0002), C-reactive protein (CRP) (54.7 vs. 104.0; p<0.0001), d-dimer (1.2 vs. 3.2; p<0.0001), ferritin (170 vs. 450.4; p<0.0001), fibrinogen (512 vs. 598; p=0.0349), international normalized ratio (INR) (1.1 vs. 1.3; p=0.0001), prothrombin time (PT) (14.8 vs. 17.4; p=0.0001), procalcitonin (0.1 vs. 0.3; p<0.0001), creatinine (0.9 vs. 1.1; p=0.0084), longer length of stay (LOS) (8.0 vs. 13.0; p=0.0251) with lower oxygen saturation (sO₂) (93.0% vs 87.5%; p<0.0001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (78 vs. 70; p=0.0039), lymphocyte (1.2 vs. 0.8; p=0.0136), and with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results (28.6% vs. 12.8%; p=0.0118).

CONCLUSION

Patients with older age, higher RR, lower sO₂ and DBP, higher creatinine, d-dimer, INR, CRP, procalcitonin, ferritin, and fibrinogen on initial admission were found to be less likely to survive COVID-19.

Corticosteroid use in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

In the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate on the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. In the recent RECOVERY trial, evaluating the effect of dexamethasone, a reduced 28-day mortality in patients requiring oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation was shown. Their results have led to considering amendments in guidelines or actually already recommending corticosteroids in COVID-19. However, the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids still remain uncertain, and reliable data to further shed light on the benefit and harm are needed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of RCTS and observational studies on adult patients was performed across Medline/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, until October 1, 2020, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were short-term mortality and viral clearance (based on RT-PCR in respiratory specimens). Secondary outcomes were: need for mechanical ventilation, need for other oxygen therapy, length of hospital stay and secondary infections.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were included, covering 20.197 patients. In twenty-two studies, the effect of corticosteroid use on mortality was quantified. The overall pooled estimate (observational studies and RCTs) showed a significant reduced mortality in the corticosteroid group (OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87). Furthermore, viral clearance time ranged from 10 to 29 days in the corticosteroid group and from 8 to 24 days in the standard of care group. Fourteen studies reported a positive effect of corticosteroids on need for and duration of mechanical ventilation. A trend toward more infections and antibiotic use was present.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings from both observational studies and RCTs confirm a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on short-term mortality and a reduction in need for mechanical ventilation. And although data in the studies were too sparse to draw any firm conclusions, there might be a signal of delayed viral clearance and an increase in secondary infections.

Prevalence and prognostic value of elevated troponins in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of cardiac troponin measurement in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) is uncertain. We investigated the prevalence of elevated troponins in these patients and its prognostic value for predicting mortality.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and preprint servers. We included studies of hospitalised covid-19 patients that reported the frequency of troponin elevations above the upper reference limit and/or the association between troponins and mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included. Elevated troponins were found in 20.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8-25.0 %) of patients who received troponin test on hospital admission. Elevated troponins on admission were associated with a higher risk of subsequent death (risk ratio 2.68, 95% CI 2.08-3.46) after adjusting for confounders in multivariable analysis. The pooled sensitivity of elevated admission troponins for predicting death was 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.65), and the specificity was 0.83 (0.77-0.88). The post-test probability of death was about 42% for patients with elevated admission troponins and was about 9% for those with non-elevated troponins on admission. There was significant heterogeneity in the analyses, and many included studies were at risk of bias due to the lack of systematic troponin measurement and inadequate follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Elevated troponins were relatively common in patients hospitalised for covid-19. Troponin measurement on admission might help in risk stratification, especially in identifying patients at high risk of death when troponin levels are elevated. High-quality prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020176747.

Mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and corticosteroids use: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to viral pneumonitis is one of the main causes of high mortality in patients with COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019). We systematically reviewed mortality in COVID-19 patients with ARDS and the potential role of systemic corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases and country-specific healthcare databases were searched to identify relevant studies/reports. The quality assessment of individual studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Country-specific proportion of individuals with COVID-19 who developed ARDS and reported death were combined in a random-effect meta-analysis to give a pooled mortality estimate of ARDS.

RESULTS

The overall pooled mortality estimate among 10,815 ARDS cases in COVID-19 patients was 39% (95% CI: 23-56%). The pooled mortality estimate for China was 69% (95% CI: 67-72%). In Europe, the highest mortality estimate among COVID-19 patients with ARDS was reported in Poland (73%; 95% CI: 58-86%) while Germany had the lowest mortality estimate (13%; 95% CI: 2-29%) among COVID-19 patients with ARDS. The median crude mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with reported corticosteroid use was 28.0% (lower quartile: 13.9%; upper quartile: 53.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The high mortality in COVID-19 associated ARDS necessitates a prompt and aggressive treatment strategy which includes corticosteroids. Most of the studies included no information on the dosing regimen of corticosteroid therapy, however, low-dose corticosteroid therapy or pulse corticosteroid therapy appears to have a beneficial role in the management of severely ill COVID-19 patients.