Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without ...azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization.
Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96-1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00-1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19.
Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.
Cytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living ...systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.
Data sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Of 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80–1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52–0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9–100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51–0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38–1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55–1.24, five RCTs), respectively.
Cumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.
To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and ...signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.
Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.
Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.
Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.
After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19–negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.
This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.
More than one year since its emergence, corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still looming large with a paucity of treatment options. To add to this burden, a sizeable subset of patients who have ...recovered from acute COVID-19 infection have reported lingering symptoms, leading to significant disability and impairment of their daily life activities. These patients are considered to suffer from what has been termed as "chronic" or "long" COVID-19 or a form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, and patients experiencing this syndrome have been termed COVID-19 long-haulers. Despite recovery from infection, the persistence of atypical chronic symptoms, including extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pains, brain fogs, anxiety and depression, that could last for months implies an underlying disease pathology that persist beyond the acute presentation of the disease. As opposed to the direct effects of the virus itself, the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is believed to be largely responsible for the appearance of these lasting symptoms, possibly through facilitating an ongoing inflammatory process. In this review, we hypothesize potential immunological mechanisms underlying these persistent and prolonged effects, and describe the multi-organ long-term manifestations of COVID-19.
Little is known about sudden unexplained death (SUD) in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, family screening and medical autopsy are not routinely performed due to perceived religious and cultural resistance. ...However, this has never been systematically examined. We sought to describe the prevalence and characteristics of family history of SUD and the attitude of family members toward medical autopsy and family screening.
This was a cross-sectional study utilizing an online survey distributed though social media platforms from August 15 to September 15, 2021. Participants' characteristics, details about SUD cases, and the attitude toward medical autopsy and family screening were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of negative attitude toward medical autopsy.
A total of 11374 were included in the final analysis after excluding children. The prevalence of FHx of at least one first degree relative (FDR) with SUD was found to be 9.4% 95% CI (8.9% - 10%). Among participants with any FHx of SUD, 1346/3489 (38.6%) had ≥ 2 family members affected. Only 183 participants with a FHx of SUD visited a physician for the purpose of family screening (183/3489, 5.3%). The total number of SUD cases reported was 5474. Of those, 22% were 35-year-old or younger. Only 22% of participants (2458/11374) had a negative attitude towards medical autopsy, and the most common reason was the perceived lack of benefit. Older age (> 35 years), family history of SUD, female gender, and lack of knowledge about the yield of medical autopsy were associated with negative attitude in the adjusted analysis.
SUD occurred at young age and affected multiple family members in a significant proportion of families. Despite that, family screening was seldom performed. There is an urgent need to improve the care of SUD by incorporating medical autopsy and developing clinical pathways to screen family members.
Many meta‐analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as ...a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID‐19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval CI 0.00–0.03, I2 = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86–1.42, I2 = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89–1.04, I2 = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID‐19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID‐19 infection in patients with high‐risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.
The characteristics of young adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has not been well described. The mean age of gulf citizens in ACS registries is ...10-15 years younger than their western counterparts, which provided us with a unique opportunity to investigate the characteristics and predictors of OHCA in young adults presenting with ACS.
This was a retrospective cohort study using data from 7 prospective ACS registries in the Gulf region. In brief, all registries included consecutive adults who were admitted with ACS. OHCA was defined as cardiac arrest upon presentation (i.e., before admission to the hospital). We described the characteristics of young adults (< 50 years) who had OHCA and performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess independent predictors of OHCA.
A total of 31,620 ACS patients were included in the study. There were 611 (1.93%) OHCA cases in the whole cohort 188/10,848 (1.73%) in young adults vs 423/20,772 (2.04%) in older adults, p = 0.06. Young adults were predominantly males presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) 182/188 (96.8%) and 172/188 (91.49%), respectively. OHCA was the sentinel event of coronary artery disease (CAD) in 70% of young adults. STEMI, male sex, and non-smoking status were found to be independent predictors of OHCA OR = 5.862 (95% CI 2.623-13.096), OR: 4.515 (95% CI 1.085-18.786), and OR = 2.27 (95% CI 1.335-3.86), respectively.
We observed a lower prevalence of OHCA in ACS patients in our region as compared to previous literature from other regions. Moreover, OHCA was the sentinel event of CAD in the majority of young adults, who were predominantly males with STEMIs. These findings should help risk-stratify patients with ACS and inform further research into the characteristics of OHCA in young adults.
Background
The management of anticoagulation therapy around the time of catheter ablation (CA) procedure for adults with arrhythmia is critical and yet is variable in clinical practice. The ideal ...approach for safe and effective perioperative management should balance the risk of bleeding during uninterrupted anticoagulation while minimising the risk of thromboembolic events with interrupted therapy.
Objectives
To compare the efficacy and harms of interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation (CA) in adults with arrhythmias.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and SCI‐Expanded on the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials on 5 January 2021. We also searched three registers on 29 May 2021 to identify ongoing or unpublished trials. We performed backward and forward searches on reference lists of included trials and other systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field. We applied no restrictions on language or publication status.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials comparing uninterrupted anticoagulation with any modality of interruption with or without heparin bridging for CA in adults aged 18 years or older with arrhythmia.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors conducted independent screening, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. A third review author resolved disagreements. We extracted data on study population, interruption strategy, ablation procedure, thromboembolic events (stroke or systemic embolism), major and minor bleeding, asymptomatic thromboembolic events, cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality, quality of life (QoL), length of hospital stay, cost, and source of funding. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
Main results
We identified 12 studies (4714 participants) that compared uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation with interrupted anticoagulation. Studies performed an interruption strategy by either a complete interruption (one study) or by a minimal interruption (11 studies), of which a single‐dose skipped strategy was used (nine studies) or two‐dose skipped strategy (two studies), with or without heparin bridging.
Studies included participants with a mean age of 65 years or greater, with only two studies conducted in relatively younger individuals (mean age less than 60 years). Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) was the primary type of AF in all studies, and seven studies included other types of AF (persistent and long‐standing persistent). Most participants had CHADS2 or CHADS2‐VASc demonstrating a low–moderate risk of stroke, with almost all participants having normal or mildly reduced renal function. Ablation source using radiofrequency energy was the most common (seven studies).
Ten studies (2835 participants) were conducted in East Asian countries (Japan, China, and South Korea), while the remaining two studies were conducted in the USA. Eight studies were conducted in a single centre. Postablation follow‐up was variable among studies at less than 30 days (three studies), 30 days (six studies), and more than 30 days postablation (three studies).
Overall, the meta‐analysis showed high uncertainty of the effect between the interrupted strategy compared to uninterrupted strategy on the primary outcomes of thromboembolic events (risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 9.46; I2 = 59%; 6 studies, 3468 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). However, subgroup analysis showed that uninterrupted vitamin K antagonist (VKA) is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic events without increasing the risk of bleeding. There is also uncertainty on the outcome of major bleeding events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.05; I2 = 6%; 10 studies, 4584 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The uncertainty was also evident for the secondary outcomes of minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; I2 = 87%; 9 studies, 3843 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), all‐cause mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.21; 442 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and asymptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.47; I2 = 56%; 6 studies, 1268 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). There was a lower risk of the composite endpoint of thromboembolic events (stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all‐cause mortality) in the interrupted compared to uninterrupted arm (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81; 1 study, 442 participants; low‐certainty evidence).
In general, the low event rates, different comparator anticoagulants, and use of different ablation procedures may be the cause of imprecision and heterogeneity observed.
Authors' conclusions
This meta‐analysis showed that the evidence is uncertain to inform the decision to either interrupt or continue anticoagulation therapy around CA procedure in adults with arrhythmia on outcomes of thromboembolic events, major and minor bleeding, all‐cause mortality, asymptomatic thromboembolic events, and a composite endpoint of thromboembolic events (stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all‐cause mortality).
Most studies in the review adopted a minimal interruption strategy which has the advantage of reducing the risk of bleeding while maintaining a lower level of anticoagulation to prevent periprocedural thromboembolism, hence low event rates on the primary outcomes of thromboembolism and bleeding. The one study that adopted a complete interruption of VKA showed that uninterrupted VKA reduces the risk of thromboembolism without increasing the risk of bleeding. Hence, future trials with larger samples, tailored to a more generalisable population and using homogeneous periprocedural anticoagulant therapy and ablation source are required to address the safety and efficacy of the optimal management of anticoagulant therapy prior to ablation.
To systematically review the literature about the association between systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) and outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Scopus, Web of ...Science, and preprints up to July 20, 2020. We included observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) that assessed COVID-19 patients treated with CST. We pooled adjusted effect estimates of mortality and other outcomes using a random effect model, among studies at low or moderate risk for bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
Out of 1067 citations screened for eligibility, one RCT and 19 cohort studies were included (16,977 hospitalized patients). Ten studies (1 RCT and 9 cohorts) with 10,278 patients examined the effect of CST on short term mortality. The pooled adjusted RR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.69–1.22, I2 = 81.94%). This effect was observed across all stages of disease severity. Four cohort studies examined the effect of CST on composite outcome of death, ICU admission and mechanical ventilation need. The pooled adjusted RR was 0.41(0.23−0.73, I2 = 78.69%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of CST on delayed viral clearance. The pooled adjusted RR was 1.47(95% CI 1.11–1.93, I2 = 43.38%).
In this systematic review, as of July 2020, heterogeneous and low certainty cumulative evidence based on observational studies and one RCT suggests that CST was not associated with reduction in short-term mortality but possibly with a delay in viral clearance in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 of different severities. However, the discordant results between the single RCT and observational studies as well as the heterogeneity observed across observational studies, call for caution in using observational data and suggests the need for more RCTs to identify the clinical and biochemical characteristics of patients’ population that could benefit from CST.
PDF
