Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/34/e2109229118.full.pdf

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is the most consequential pandemic of this century. Since the outbreak in late 2019, animal models have been playing crucial roles in aiding the rapid development of vaccines/drugs for prevention and therapy, as well as understanding the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune responses of hosts. However, the current animal models have some deficits and there is an urgent need for novel models to evaluate the virulence of variants of concerns (VOC), antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), and various comorbidities of COVID-19. This review summarizes the clinical features of COVID-19 in different populations, and the characteristics of the major animal models of SARS-CoV-2, including those naturally susceptible animals, such as non-human primates, Syrian hamster, ferret, minks, poultry, livestock, and mouse models sensitized by genetically modified, AAV/adenoviral transduced, mouse-adapted strain of SARS-CoV-2, and by engraftment of human tissues or cells. Since understanding the host receptors and proteases is essential for designing advanced genetically modified animal models, successful studies on receptors and proteases are also reviewed. Several improved alternatives for future mouse models are proposed, including the reselection of alternative receptor genes or multiple gene combinations, the use of transgenic or knock-in method, and different strains for establishing the next generation of genetically modified mice. 

/pdf/animal-models-for-covid-19-advances-gaps-and-perspectives-1ddv5yhc.pdf

Animal models for COVID-19: advances, gaps and perspectives

Hospital settings are at increased risk of spreading Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, hence non-pharmaceutical prevention interventions (NPPIs) and prioritized vaccination of healthcare workers and resident patients are critical. The status of COVID-19 hospital acquired infections (HAIs) in low-income settings is unclear. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence on COVID-19 HAIs amongst patients, prior to the rollout of vaccines in countries worldwide.We conducted a scoping review of English peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus using a combination of selected search terms. Full texts articles presenting results on COVID-19 HAIs in hospitalised patients before the rollout of vaccines in countries worldwide were eligible. Data extracted from eligible articles included estimates of COVID-19 HAIs, country, and type of hospital setting, and was summarized narratively. Quality assessment of included articles was not possible.Literature searches generated a total of 5920 articles, and 45 were eligible for analysis. Eligible articles were from Europe, North America, Asia, and Brazil and none were from low-income countries. The proportion of COVID-19 HAIs ranged from 0% when strict NPPIs were applied, to 65% otherwise. The estimates of COVID-19 HAIs did not differ by country but were lower in studies conducted after implementation of NPPIs and in specialized hospital settings for operative surgery. Studies conducted before the implementation of NPPIs or in long-term care and psychiatric wards often reported high estimates of HAI. Although there was no clear trend in general wards, those situated in academic hospitals managed to reduce HAI rates under strict NPPI protocols. Operative surgery settings, unlike psychiatric settings, effectively prevented COVID-19 HAI using tailored NPPIs.The available evidence shows a high risk of COVID-19 HAIs, the feasibility of preventing HAIs in different healthcare settings and the importance of appropriately tailored NPPIs. There were no data from low-income settings, therefore, it is unclear whether the reported NPPI approaches could be equally effective elsewhere. We recommend routine monitoring of COVID-19 HAIs in countries with low vaccination coverage, to identify and close gaps in NPPIs and understand gains made from vaccinating healthcare workers and hospitalized patients. 

/pdf/hospital-acquired-covid-19-infections-amongst-patients-16wre9gf.pdf

Hospital acquired COVID-19 infections amongst patients before the rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations, a scoping review

Multiple studies have attempted to elucidate the relationship between chronic hypoxia and SARS-CoV-2 infection. It seems that high-altitude is associated with lower COVID-19 related mortality and incidence rates; nevertheless, all the data came from observational studies, being this the first one looking into prospectively collected clinical data from severely ill patients residing at two significantly different altitudes.A prospective cohort, a two-center study among COVID-19 confirmed adult patients admitted to a low (sea level) and high-altitude (2,850 m) ICU unit in Ecuador was conducted. Two hundred and thirty confirmed patients were enrolled from March 15th to July 15th, 2020.From 230 patients, 149 were men (64.8%) and 81 women (35.2%). The median age of all the patients was 60 years, and at least 105 (45.7%) of patients had at least one underlying comorbidity, including hypertension (33.5%), diabetes (16.5%), and chronic kidney failure (5.7%). The APACHE II scale (Score that estimates ICU mortality) at 72 hours was especially higher in the low altitude group with a median of 18 points (IQR: 9.5-24.0), compared to 9 points (IQR: 5.0-22.0) obtained in the high-altitude group. There is evidence of a difference in survival in favor of the high-altitude group (p = 0.006), the median survival being 39 days, compared to 21 days in the low altitude group.There has been a substantial improvement in survival amongst people admitted to the high-altitude ICU. Residing at high-altitudes was associated with improved survival, especially among patients with no comorbidities. COVID-19 patients admitted to the high-altitude ICU unit have improved severity-of-disease classification system scores at 72 hours. 

/pdf/high-altitude-is-associated-with-better-short-term-survival-3t43s2g1.pdf

High-altitude is associated with better short-term survival in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU

Hematological profile and biochemical markers of COVID-19 non-survivors: A retrospective analysis

Predictors of critical illness and mortality based on symptoms and initial physical examination for patients with SARS-CoV-2: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective:The primary objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence of sub-clinical left ventricular dysfunction among asymptomatic diabetic patients, while the secondary objectives were to...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1479164120944134

Systolic dysfunction in asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients, a harbinger of microvascular complications: A cross-sectional study from North India.

Effectiveness of the Internet-Based Versus Face-to-Face Interaction on Reduction of Tobacco Use Among Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose Definitive antiviral treatment is not available for COVID-19 infection, with the exception of remdesivir, which still evokes many doubts. Various monotherapy or combination therapies with antivirals or other agents have been tried. The present study aims to evaluate the therapeutic potential of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with ribavirin in mild-severe COVID-19. Patients and methods A single-center, open-label, parallel-arm, stratified randomized controlled trial evaluated the therapeutic potential of combination antiviral therapies. Enrolled patients in the severe category were randomized into three groups: (A) standard treatment, (B) hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin+standard treatment, or (C) lopinavir+ritonavir+ribavirin+standard treatment; while the non-severe category comprised two groups: (A) standard treatment or (B) hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin. Combination antivirals were given for 10 days and followed for 28 days. The primary endpoints were safety, symptomatic and laboratory recovery of organ dysfunctions, and time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative report. Results In total, 111 patients were randomized: 24, 23, and 24 in severe categories A, B, and C, respectively, and 20 in each of the non-severe groups. Two patients receiving ribavirin experienced drug induced liver injury, and another developed QT prolongation after hydroxychloroquine. In the severe category, 47.6%, 55%, and 30.09% in A, B, and C groups, respectively, showed symptomatic recovery, compared to 93.3% and 86.7% in A and B groups, respectively, in the non-severe category at 72 hours (P>0.05). Conclusion Though the results failed to show statistical superiority of the antiviral combination therapies to that of the standard therapy in both the severe and non-severe categories in symptomatic adult patients of COVID-19 due to very small sized trial, clinically hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin therapy is showing better recovery by 7.4% than standard therapy in the former category. However, results do indicate the benefit of standard therapy in the non-severe category by 6.6%. Furthermore, the dose of ribavirin needs to be reconsidered in the Indian population.

/pdf/antiviral-combination-clinically-better-than-standard-1appq2s3im.pdf

Mukesh Bairwa

Papers

Hematological profile and biochemical markers of COVID-19 non-survivors: A retrospective analysis

Predictors of critical illness and mortality based on symptoms and initial physical examination for patients with SARS-CoV-2: A retrospective cohort study.

Systolic dysfunction in asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients, a harbinger of microvascular complications: A cross-sectional study from North India.

Effectiveness of the Internet-Based Versus Face-to-Face Interaction on Reduction of Tobacco Use Among Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Antiviral Combination Clinically Better Than Standard Therapy in Severe but Not in Non-Severe COVID-19.