A Randomized Trial of Intravenous Amino Acids for Kidney Protection.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious and common complication of cardiac surgery, for which reduced kidney perfusion is a key contributing factor. Intravenous amino acids increase kidney perfusion and recruit renal functional reserve. However, the efficacy of amino acids in reducing the occurrence of AKI after cardiac surgery is uncertain. METHODS: In a multinational, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adult patients who were scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass to receive an intravenous infusion of either a balanced mixture of amino acids, at a dose of 2 g per kilogram of ideal body weight per day, or placebo (Ringer's solution) for up to 3 days. The primary outcome was the occurrence of AKI, defined according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes creatinine criteria. Secondary outcomes included the severity of AKI, the use and duration of kidney-replacement therapy, and all-cause 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We recruited 3511 patients at 22 centers in three countries and assigned 1759 patients to the amino acid group and 1752 to the placebo group. AKI occurred in 474 patients (26.9%) in the amino acid group and in 555 (31.7%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.002). Stage 3 AKI occurred in 29 patients (1.6%) and 52 patients (3.0%), respectively (relative risk, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.87). Kidney-replacement therapy was used in 24 patients (1.4%) in the amino acid group and in 33 patients (1.9%) in the placebo group. There were no substantial differences between the two groups in other secondary outcomes or in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, infusion of amino acids reduced the occurrence of AKI. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; PROTECTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03709264.).

Ketamine versus etomidate as an induction agent for tracheal intubation in critically ill adults: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention commonly performed in critically ill patients. Due to its favorable cardiovascular profile, ketamine is considered less likely to compromise clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether ketamine, compared with other agents, reduces mortality in critically ill patients undergoing intubation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials and matched observational studies comparing ketamine with any control in critically ill patients as an induction agent. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available, and the secondary outcomes included Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, ventilator-free days at day 28, vasopressor-free days at day 28, post-induction mean arterial pressure, and successful intubation on the first attempt. For the primary outcome, we used a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) scale with a weakly informative neutral prior corresponding to a mean estimate of no difference with 95% probability; the estimated effect size will fall between a relative risk of 0.25 and 4. The RR and 95% credible interval (CrI) were used to estimate the probability of mortality reduction (RR < 1). The secondary outcomes were assessed with a frequentist random-effects model. We registered this study in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/2vf79/ ). RESULTS: We included seven randomized trials and one propensity-matched study totaling 2978 patients. Etomidate was the comparator in all the identified studies. The probability that ketamine reduced mortality was 83.2% (376/1475 [25%] vs. 411/1503 [27%]; RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.79-1.08), which was confirmed by a subgroup analysis excluding studies with a high risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: All of the included studies evaluated ketamine versus etomidate among critically ill adults requiring tracheal intubation. This meta-analysis showed a moderate probability that induction with ketamine is associated with a reduced risk of mortality.

Renin as a Prognostic Marker in Intensive Care and Perioperative Settings: A Scoping Review.

Serum renin increases in response to sympathetic nerve activation and hypotension. Recent studies have reported the association of serum renin levels with adverse clinical outcomes in acute care settings. This scoping review aimed to systematically review the available literature on renin as a prognostic marker in intensive care and perioperative patients. We searched for studies published since inception until March 31, 2023, which assessed the association between serum renin levels and clinical outcomes or the effect of synthetic angiotensin II administration on serum renin levels in critically ill and perioperative patients in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up; the secondary outcomes were adverse renal outcomes (ie, acute kidney injury, the need for renal replacement therapy, and major adverse kidney events), hemodynamic instability, outcomes to angiotensin II administration, and prognostic performance for mortality when compared with lactate. Among the 2081 studies identified, we included 16 studies with 1573 patients (7 studies on shock, 5 on nonspecific critical illness, 2 on cardiac surgery, 1 on noncardiac surgery, and 1 on coronavirus disease 2019). A significant association between serum renin levels and poor outcomes was identified in 14 studies, with 10 studies demonstrating an association with mortality. One post hoc analysis found that angiotensin II administration reduced mortality in patients with markedly elevated renin values. Two studies showed that renin was superior to lactate as a prognostic marker of mortality. Our scoping review showed that elevated serum renin levels may be associated with clinically relevant outcomes among various perioperative and intensive care populations. Increased serum renin levels may identify patients in which synthetic angiotensin II administration improves clinical outcomes and may outperform serum lactate in predicting mortality.

Haptoglobin Administration for Intravascular Hemolysis: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Exogenous haptoglobin administration may enhance plasma-free hemoglobin (pfHb) clearance during hemolysis and reduce its end-organ damage: we systematically reviewed and summarized available evidence on the use of haptoglobin as a treatment for hemolysis of any cause. METHODS: We included studies describing haptoglobin administration as treatment or prevention of hemolysis-related complications. Only studies with a control group reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest were included in the quantitative synthesis. Primary outcome was the change in pfHb concentration 1 h after haptoglobin infusion. RESULTS: Among 573 articles, 13 studies were included in the review (677 patients, 52.8% received haptoglobin). Median initial haptoglobin intravenous bolus was 4,000 (2,000, 4,000) IU. Haptoglobin was associated with lower pfHb 1 h (SMD -11.28; 95% CI: -15.80 to -6.75; p < 0.001) and 24 h (SMD -2.65; 95% CI: -4.73 to -0.57; p = 0.001) after infusion. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between haptoglobin-treated patients and control group (OR 1.41; 95% CI: 0.49-4.95; p = 0.520). Haptoglobin was associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; p = 0.020). No adverse events or side effects associated with haptoglobin use were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Haptoglobin administration has been used in patients with hemolysis from any cause to treat or prevent hemolysis-associated adverse events. Haptoglobin may reduce levels of pfHb and preserve kidney function without increase in adverse events.

Effect of Urine Output on the Predictive Precision of NephroCheck in On-Pump Cardiac Surgery With Crystalloid Cardioplegia: Insights from the PrevAKI Study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies in other settings suggested that urine output (UO) might affect NephroCheck predictive value. We investigated the correlation between NephroCheck and UO in cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and crystalloid cardioplegia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients underwent NephroCheck testing 4 hours after CPB discontinuation. The primary outcome was the correlation between UO, NephroCheck results, and acute kidney injury (AKI, defined according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes). Of 354 patients, 337 were included. Median NephroCheck values were 0.06 (ng/mL)2/1,000) for the overall population and 0.15 (ng/mL)2/1,000) for patients with moderate to severe AKI. NephroCheck showed a significant inverse correlation with UO (ρ = -0.17; p = 0.002) at the time of measurement. The area under the receiver characteristic curve (AUROC) for NephroCheck was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.65), whereas for serum creatinine was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86; p < 0.001). When limiting the analysis to the prediction of moderate to severe AKI, NephroCheck had a AUROC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.86; p<0.0001), while creatinine an AUROC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NephroCheck measured 4 hours after the discontinuation from the CPB predicts moderate to severe AKI. However, a lower threshold may be necessary in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Creatinine measured at the same time of the test remains a reliable marker of subsequent development of renal failure.

Intraoperative hypotension and postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes; however these findings are supported only by observational studies. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomised trials was to compare the postoperative effects permissive management with targeted management of intraoperative blood pressure. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to June 2023 for studies comparing permissive (mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg) with targeted (mean arterial pressure >60 mm Hg) intraoperative blood pressure management. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. Secondary outcomes were atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, delirium, stroke, number of patients requiring transfusion, time on mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials including a total of 9359 patients. Mortality was similar between permissive and targeted blood pressure management groups (89/4644 [1.9%] vs 99/4643 [2.1%], odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.18, P=0.38, I2=0% with nine studies included). Atrial fibrillation (102/3896 [2.6%] vs 130/3887 [3.3%] odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.96, P=0.03, I2=0%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference -0.20 days, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13, P<0.001, I2=0%) were reduced in the permissive management group. No significant differences were found in subgroup analysis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Pooled randomised evidence shows that a target intraoperative mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg is not associated with increased mortality; nevertheless it is surprisingly associated with a reduced rate of atrial fibrillation and of length of hospital stay. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023393725.

The Effect of Heparin Full-Dose Anticoagulation on Survival of Hospitalized, Non-critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-analysis of High Quality Studies.

BACKGROUND: International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate." CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.

Del Nido Cardioplegia in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients receiving del Nido solution versus any other type of cardioplegia. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: Cardiac operating rooms. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from their inception until August 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing del Nido versus other cardioplegias. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies were included, including 1,812 patients (871 in the del Nido group and 941 in the control group), and published after 2017. There were significant reductions in postoperative stroke and/or transient ischemic attack rate in the del Nido group: 9/467 (1.9%) v 25/540 (4.6%); odds ratio (OR), 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.92 (p = 0.007). Del Nido cardioplegia was also associated with significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp time (mean difference, -8.99 minutes; 95% CI, -17.24 to -0.73 [p < 0.001]), significantly reduced need for defibrillation (89/582 [15%] v 252/655 [38%]; OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72 [p < 0.001]), significantly lower risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (21/235 [8.9%] v 34/301 [11%]; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.97 [p = 0.04]), with no effect on mortality (14/607 [2.3%] v 12/681 [1.8%]; p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: According to the authors' meta-analysis of recent randomized clinical trials, del Nido is a safe cardioplegic solution, which might provide better organ protection in adult cardiac surgery without differences in mortality when compared to other cardioplegic solutions.

Efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.62; p˂0.01; I2 = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85-3.03; p = 0.15; I2 = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33-1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.

Corticosteroids for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) With Different Disease Severity: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus 2019) infection still are debated. Because large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a well-conducted meta-analysis on the use of corticosteroids, focused on patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in intensive care units, recently were published, a meta-analysis of RCTs on corticosteroids therapy in patients with different disease severity was performed to evaluate the effect on survival. DESIGN: A meta-analyses of RCTs was performed. SETTING: Patients admitted to hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with coronavirus disease. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of corticosteroids. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A search was performed for RCTs of adult patients with acute hypoxemic failure related to 2019-nCoV infection who received corticosteroids versus any comparator. The primary endpoint was mortality rate. Five RCTs involving 7,692 patients were included. Overall mortality of patients treated with corticosteroids was slightly but significantly lower than mortality of controls (26% v 28%, relative risk {RR} = 0.89 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.82-0.96], p = 0.003). The same beneficial effect was found in the subgroup of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.72-1.00], p = 0.05 number needed to treat {NNT} = 19). Remarkably, corticosteroids increased mortality in the subgroup of patients not requiring oxygen (17% v 13%, RR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.00-1.62], p = 0.05 number needed to harm {NNH} = 29). Tests for comparison between mechanically ventilated subgroups and those not requiring oxygen confirmed that treatment with corticosteroids had a statistically significant different effect on survival. Patients treated with corticosteroids had a significantly lower risk of need for mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids may be considered in severe critically ill patients with COVID-19 but must be discouraged in patients not requiring oxygen therapy. Urgently, further trials are warranted before implementing this treatment worldwide.

Interventions reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of randomized evidence.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic changed the way medical research is published, possibly forever. As the need for rapidity led to the rise of preprint servers, the undeniable drop in the overall quality of scientific publications requires an in-depth review of all available evidence. The present manuscript aims to identify and summarize all treatments which have been reported to reduce mortality in randomized trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Independent investigators searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify all randomized trials of any intervention influencing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to August 18th, 2022. Articles were selected only when they fulfilled all the following: randomized trial design; dealing with any kind of interventions in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and statistically significant reduction in mortality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 28 interventions (42 manuscripts) reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. About 60% of the studies (26/42) were multicentric, for a total of 1140 centers involved worldwide. Several of these studies were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals. Interventions with randomized evidence of mortality reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patients belonged to 5 domains: corticosteroids, immunomodulators, antimicrobials, supportive therapies, and other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions have the potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The correct treatment of future pandemics relies on large, multicentric randomized clinical trials for further evaluation of these promising strategies.

Antiandrogen agents in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION: Antiandrogen therapy can reduce the expression of transmembrane protease 2, which is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 to enter the host cells. Prior trials suggested the efficacy of antiandrogen agents in patients with COVID-19. We investigated whether antiandrogen agents reduce mortality compared to placebo or usual care. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing antiandrogen agents with placebo or usual care alone in adults with COVID-19 in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the reference lists of retrieved articles, and publications by manufacturers of antiandrogen agents. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. The secondary outcomes included clinical worsening, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, admission to the intensive care unit, hospitalization, and thrombotic events. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022338099). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 13 randomized controlled trials enrolling 1934 COVID-19 patients. We found that antiandrogen agents reduced mortality at the longest follow-up available (91/1021 [8.9%] vs. 245/913 [27%]; risk ratio =0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.65; P=0.0002; I2=54%). Antiandrogen therapy also reduced clinical worsening (127/1016 [13%] vs. 298/911 [33%]; risk ratio =0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.71; P=0.0007; I2=70%) and hospitalization (97/160 [4.4%] vs. 24/165 [15%]; risk ratio =0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.58; P=0.002; I2=44%). There was no significant difference in the other outcomes between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Antiandrogen therapy reduced mortality and clinical worsening in adult patients with COVID-19.

D-dimer levels in non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability and thrombo-inflammation are the main reasons for death in COVID-19 patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference between D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov databases looking for studies reporting D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 ARDS. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, and mortality data at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We included 12 retrospective and 3 prospective studies with overall 2,828 patients, of whom 1,404 (49.6%) had non-COVID-19 ARDS and 1,424 had COVID-19 ARDS. D-dimer levels were not significantly higher in non-COVID-19 ARDS than in COVID-19 ARDS patients (mean 7.65 mg/L vs. mean 6.20 mg/L MD 0.88 [CI: -0.61 to 2.38] p = 0.25; I² = 85%) while the length of hospital stay was shorter (non-COVID-19 mean 37.4 days vs. COVID-19 mean 48.5 days, MD -10.92 [CI: -16.71 to -5.14] p < 0.001; I² = 44%). No difference in mortality was observed: non-COVID-19 ARDS 418/1167 (35.8%) vs. COVID-19 ARDS 467/1201 (38.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the mean D-dimer levels between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.

Etomidate as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if etomidate impacted mortality in critically ill adults when compared with other induction agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials which compared etomidate with any other induction agent in critically ill adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was mortality at the main timepoint defined by the study. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio. Using that risk ratio and 95% confidence interval, we then estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) and the number needed to harm ≤100 (RR ≥ 1.05). RESULTS: We included 11 randomized trials comprising 2704 patients. We found that etomidate increased mortality (319/1359 [23%] vs. 267/1345 [20%]; risk ratio (RR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.33; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 31). The probabilities of any increase and a 1% increase (NNH ≤100) in mortality were 98.1% and 92.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found a high probability that etomidate increases mortality when used as an induction agent in critically ill patients with a number needed to harm of 31.

Meta-Analysis of Glucocorticoids for Covid-19 Patients Not Receiving Oxygen.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), although a possible harm was documented in patients with Covid-19 not requiring oxygen. METHODS: We searched Embase, BioMed Central, medRxiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for any randomized trial or matched study ever performed on adult patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen therapy treated with intravenous or oral glucocorticoids versus any comparator (standard therapy or placebo); there were no restrictions on dose or time of administration. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS: Five randomized trials and one propensity-matched study involving 6634 hospitalized patients not on oxygen were finally included (3704 received glucocorticoids and 2930 received standard treatment). The overall mortality of patients treated with glucocorticoids was significantly higher than the mortality of patients in the control group (509 of 3704 [14%] in the glucocorticoid group vs. 294 of 2930 [10%] in the control group; odds ratio, 1.56 [95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 1.92], with three articles reporting mortality events and contributing to the combined odds ratio; P<0.001; number needed to harm=27). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid use likely increases mortality in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen, with a number needed to harm of 27. (PROSPERO number CRD42022342996.)

Why are Asian countries outperforming the Western world in controlling COVID-19 pandemic?

COVID-19 already caused more than 1,260,000 deaths around the world. However, mortality rates are not equal amongst the different countries. Mortality rates are ranging from less than 1 death per million in Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand to 1,112 deaths per million in Belgium. In the present article, we report a striking difference in mean per million mortality between Asian and European countries (2.7 vs 197 deaths per million population, p < 0.001). In addition, we confirmed that the later a specific country was hit by the epidemic, the milder the impact on mortality during the first 50 days was. We analyzed several factors that may have contributed to this discrepancy including population age, previous experience of epidemics in the modern era, social acceptance of physical distancing and face masks, percentage of active smokers and lastly genetic prothrombotic mutations.

COVID-19 second wave: appropriateness of admissions to the Emergency Department of a main metropolitan hospital in Milan.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, Italy and Lombardy, in autumn 2020, there was a steep increase in reported cases due to the second epidemic wave of SARS-Cov-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of COVID-19 patients' admissions to the ED of the San Raffaele Hospital. METHODS: We compared data between the inter-wave period (IWP, from 1st to 30th September) and the second wave period (WP, 1st October to 15th November) focusing on the ED presentation, discharge priority colour code and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 977 admissions with a SARS-Cov-2 positive swab, 6% were in the IWP and 94% in the WP. Red, yellow and white code increased (these latter from 1.8% to 5.4%) as well as self-presented in yellow and white code. Discharges home increased from 1.8% to 5.4%, while hospitalizations decreased from 63% to 51%. DISCUSSION: We found a rise in white codes (among self-presented patients), indicating inappropriateness of admissions. The increase in discharges suggests that several patients did not require hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic brought out the fundamental role of primary care to manage patients with low-intensity needs. The important increase in ED admissions of COVID-19 patients caused a reduction of NO-COVID-19 patients, with possible inadequate treatment.