Regression of liver fibrosis after HBsAg loss: A prospective matched case-control evaluation using transient elastography and serum enhanced liver fibrosis test.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We assessed the effect of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroclearance (HBsAg-loss) on liver fibrosis regression in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection. METHOD: CHB patients with recent documented HBsAg-loss were age- and gender-matched with treatment-naïve HBeAg-negative CHB infection. Paired assessment with transient elastography and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) measurements were performed and repeated at 3 years. Fibrosis regression was arbitrarily defined as decrease in ≥ 1 fibrosis stage by ELF, or combining with reduction > 30% in liver stiffness. RESULTS: A total of 142 HBsAg-loss and 142 CHB subjects were recruited (median age 58.1 years, 51.4% male). A total of 1.8% (1.4% HBsAg-loss vs 2.1% CHB) achieved combined endpoint of fibrosis regression at 3 years. When ELF-only definition of fibrosis regression was used, 14.5% HBsAg-loss and 16.9% CHB subjects achieved this endpoint, which was significantly associated with baseline ELF (hazard ratio (HR) 1.827, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.085-3.075) and time since HBsAg-loss (HR 2.688, 95% CI 1.257-5.748). While increasing time since HBsAg-loss increased the proportion of ELF-defined fibrosis regression, increasing age was also associated with significant fibrosis. Age of achieving HBsAg-loss (ageSC) was independently associated with high baseline ELF values. Up to 52.3% and 63.8% subjects with ageSC > 50 had advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis at baseline and 3 years, respectively, compared with 5.9% and 20.6% in subjects with ageSC < 50. CONCLUSION: Fibrosis regression occurred in a minority of subjects achieving HBsAg-loss, which was not significantly different compared with subjects with persistent overt CHB. Subjects after achieving HBsAg-loss, especially among those with ageSC > 50, should receive ongoing surveillance for liver-related complications.

Optimal Timing of Remdesivir Initiation in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Administered With Dexamethasone.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking about any additional benefits of introducing remdesivir on top of dexamethasone, and the optimal timing of initiation. METHODS: In a territory-wide cohort of 10 445 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients from Hong Kong who were hospitalized between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021, 1544 had received dexamethasone during hospitalization. The exposure group consisted of patients who had initiated remdesivir prior to dexamethasone (n = 93) or co-initiated the 2 drugs simultaneously (n = 373), whereas the nonexposure group included patients who were given remdesivir after dexamethasone (n = 149) or those without remdesivir use (n = 929). Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting for propensity score were applied and hazard ratios (HRs) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Time to clinical improvement (HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .032) and positive IgG antibody (HR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46; P = .029) were significantly shorter in the exposure group than that of nonexposure. The exposure group had a shorter hospital length of stay by 2.65 days among survivors, lower WHO clinical progression scale scores from 5 days of follow-up onwards, and lower risks of in-hospital death (HR = .59; 95% CI, .36-.98; P = .042) and composite outcomes; and without experiencing an increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Differences in the cumulative direct medical costs between groups were no longer significant from 17 days of follow-up onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of remdesivir prior to or simultaneously with dexamethasone was associated with significantly shorter time to clinical improvement and positive IgG antibody, lower risk of in-hospital death, in addition to shorter length of hospital stay in patients with moderate COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection: a target trial emulation.

To date, there is a lack of randomized trial data examining the use of the antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected pregnant persons. This target trial emulation study aimed to address this gap by evaluating the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in nonhospitalized pregnant women with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. Among patients diagnosed between 16 March 2022 and 5 February 2023, exposure was defined as outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment within 5 days of symptom onset or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), all-cause maternal death and COVID-19-related hospitalization, while secondary outcomes were individual components of MMMI, preterm birth, stillbirth, neonatal death and cesarean section. One-to-ten propensity-score matching was conducted between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users and nonusers, followed by cloning, censoring and weighting. Overall, 211 pregnant women on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 1,998 nonusers were included. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day MMMI risk (absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 1.47%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.21-2.34%) but not 28-days COVID-19-related hospitalization (ARR = -0.09%, 95% CI = -1.08% to 0.71%). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced risks of cesarean section (ARR = 1.58%, 95% CI = 0.85-2.39%) and preterm birth (ARR = 2.70%, 95% CI = 0.98-5.31%). No events of maternal or neonatal death or stillbirth were recorded. The findings suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is an effective treatment in symptomatic pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection.

Risks of incident major osteoporotic fractures following SARS-CoV-2 infection among older individuals: a population-based cohort study in Hong Kong.

Population-based epidemiological studies on post-acute phase coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19)-related fractures in older adults are lacking. This study aims to examine the risk of incident major osteoporotic fractures following SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals aged ≥50, compared to individuals without COVID-19. It was a retrospective, propensity-score matched, population-based cohort study of COVID-19 patients and non-COVID individuals identified from the electronic database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority from January 2020 to March 2022. The primary outcome was a composite of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, clinical vertebral, and upper limb). COVID-19 patients were 1:1 matched to controls using propensity-score according to age, sex, vaccination status, medical comorbidities and baseline medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 429 459 COVID-19 patients were included, 1:1 matched to non-COVID individuals. Upon median follow-up of 11 months, COVID-19 patients had higher risks of major osteoporotic fractures (5.08 vs 3.95 per 1000 persons; HR 1.22 95%CI [1.15-1.31]), hip fractures (2.71 vs 1.94; 1.33 [1.22-1.46]), clinical vertebral fractures (0.42 vs 0.31; 1.29 [1.03-1.62]), and falls (13.83 vs 10.36; 1.28 [1.23-1.33]). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant interaction. In acute (within 30 days) and post-acute phases (beyond 30 days) following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we consistently observed a significant increase in fractures and falls risks. Our study demonstrated increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures after SARS-CoV-2 infection in both acute and post-acute phases in older adults, partly due to increased fall risk. Clinicians should be aware of musculoskeletal health of COVID-19 survivors.

Our study showed that older individuals with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at a higher risk of suffering from major osteoporotic fractures, ie serious bone fractures related to osteoporosis, compared to those not infected. The study analyzed the health records of 429 459 patients aged 50 and older in Hong Kong who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2022. These patients were compared with a matched group without COVID-19, considering age, sex, vaccination status, medical comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Findings indicated that individuals who had contracted COVID-19 experienced a higher risk of major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and clinical vertebral fractures. The risk of falls, a common cause of these fractures, was also higher in the COVID-19 group. This increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures and falls persists both shortly after infection and in the following months, underscoring the lasting impact of COVID-19 on the bone health of older adults. These results support the recommendations for the assessment of bone health and fall risks, and an urgent review of the requirement for interventions to reduce the risk of fragility fractures in older adult COVID-19 survivors.

Bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents, and insulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i), and insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bariatric surgery, SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, insulin, and/or placebo/usual care among patients with T2DM and obesity in the achievement of HbA1c < 7.0 per cent within one year, and 12-month changes in HbA1c and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 376 eligible RCTs (149 824 patients) were analysed. Bariatric surgery had significantly higher rates of achieving HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than SGLT2i (RR = 2.46, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.28, 4.92), DPP4i (RR = 2.59, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.36, 5.13), insulin (RR = 2.27, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.18, 4.58) and placebo/usual care (RR = 4.02, 95 per cent c.i. = 2.13, 7.93), but had no statistically significant difference from GLP1RA (RR = 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.91, 3.44), regardless of oral (RR = 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.66, 2.79) or injectable (RR = 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.92, 3.45) administration. Significantly more GLP1RA patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than other non-surgical treatments. Bariatric surgery had the greatest reductions in HbA1c (∼1 per cent more) and body weight (∼15 kg more) at 12 months. Among novel glucose-lowering medications, GLP1RA was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c than SGLT2i (-0.39 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.55, -0.22) and DPP4i (-0.51 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.64, -0.39) at 12 months, while GLP1RA (-1.74 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -2.48, -1.01) and SGLT2i (-2.23 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -3.07, -1.39) showed greater reductions in body weight than DPP4i at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery showed superiority in glycaemic control and weight management compared to non-surgical approaches. GLP1RA administered by oral or injectable form demonstrated reduced HbA1c and body weight at 12 months, and was preferable over other non-surgical treatments among patients with T2DM and obesity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42020201507.

Analysis of All-Cause Hospitalization and Death Among Nonhospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated With Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir During the Omicron Wave in Hong Kong.

Importance: Diabetes and COVID-19 are both global pandemics, and type 2 diabetes is a common comorbidity in patients with acute COVID-19 and is proven to be a key determinant of COVID-19 prognosis. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are oral antiviral medications recently approved for nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, following demonstration of their efficacies in reducing adverse outcomes of the disease; it is crucial to clarify whether both oral antiviral medications are efficacious in a population consisting exclusively of patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in a contemporary population-based cohort comprising exclusively nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed using population-based electronic medical record data for patients in Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 26 and October 23, 2022. Each patient was followed up until death, outcome event, crossover of oral antiviral treatment, or end of the observational period (October 30, 2022), whichever came first. Outpatient oral antiviral users were divided into molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment groups, respectively, and nontreated control participants were matched through 1:1 propensity score matching. Data analysis was performed on March 22, 2023. Exposures: Molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir twice daily for 5 days, or 150 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization. The secondary outcome was in-hospital disease progression. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with Cox regression. Results: This study identified 22 098 patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19. A total of 3390 patients received molnupiravir and 2877 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the community setting. After application of exclusion criteria followed by 1:1 propensity score matching, this study comprised 2 groups. One group included 921 molnupiravir users (487 men [52.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.7 (10.8) years, and 921 control participants (482 men [52.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.6 (11.7) years. The other group included 793 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users (401 men [50.6%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (11.5) years, and 793 control participants (395 men [49.8%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.9 (11.6) years. At a median follow-up of 102 days (IQR, 56-225 days), molnupiravir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]; P < .001) and in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.35-0.69]; P < .001) compared with nonuse. At a median follow-up of 85 days (IQR, 56-216 days), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.80]; P < .001) and a nonsignificantly lower risk of in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.59-1.44]; P = .73) compared with nonuse. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir oral antiviral medications were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes. Further studies in specific populations, such as individuals in residential care homes and individuals with chronic kidney disease, are suggested.

Initiation of Tocilizumab or Baricitinib Were Associated With Comparable Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Treated With Dexamethasone.

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone. Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173). Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.

Use of DPP4i reduced odds of clinical deterioration and hyperinflammatory syndrome in COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes: Propensity score analysis of a territory-wide cohort in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have poorer prognosis. Inconclusive evidence suggested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) might reduce inflammation and prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) entry, hence further evaluation on DPP4i is needed. METHODS: 1214 Patients with T2DM were admitted with COVID-19 between 21st January 2020 and 31st January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was DPP4i use within the 90 days prior to admission for COVID-19. Assessed outcomes included clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, low viral load, positive Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody, hyperinflammatory syndrome, proportion of IgG antibody, clinical status and length of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were performed to estimate odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of event outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: DPP4i users (N = 107) was associated with lower odds of clinical deterioration (OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.54 to 0.93, P = 0.013), hyperinflammatory syndrome (OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.69, P < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.42, P < 0.001), reduced length of hospitalization (-4.82 days, 95%CI -6.80 to -2.84, P < 0.001), proportion of positive IgG antibody on day-3 (13% vs 8%, p = 0.007) and day-7 (41% vs 26%, P < 0.001), despite lack of association between DPP4i use and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: DPP4i use was associated with reduced odds of clinical deterioration and hyperinflammatory syndrome. Prospective studies are warranted to elucidate the role of DPP4i in T2DM and COVID-19.

Slower Recovery with Early Lopinavir/Ritonavir use in Pediatric COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: There was initially insufficient understanding regarding suitable pharmacological treatment for pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) was originally used for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. It was also used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) with positive results. Nonetheless, results from recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies on COVID-19 patients were unfavorable. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 933 COVID-19 patients aged ≤ 18 years were admitted between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was receiving LPV/r within the first two days of admission. Time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, seroconversion and hyperinflammatory syndrome, cumulative costs, and hospital length of stay were assessed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and linear models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: LPV/r users were associated with longer time to clinical improvement (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001), hospital discharge (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001) and seroconversion (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; p < 0.001) when compared with controls. LPV/r users were also associated with prolonged hospital length of stay (6.99 days, 95% CI 6.23-7.76; p < 0.001) and higher costs at 30 days (US$11,709 vs US$8270; p < 0.001) as opposed to controls. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients was associated with longer time to clinical improvement. Our study advocates the recommendation against LPV/r use for pediatric patients across age groups.

Remdesivir use and risks of acute kidney injury and acute liver injury among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate and quantify the risks of AKI and ALI associated with remdesivir use, given the underlying diseases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This self-controlled case series (SCCS) study was conducted using electronic hospital records between 23 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 as retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority which manages all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong. Outcomes of AKI and ALI were defined using the KDIGO Guideline and Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for AKI and ALI following the administration of remdesivir (exposure) in comparison to a non-exposure period were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 860 COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir during hospitalisation, 334 (38.8%) and 137 (15.9%) had incident ALI and AKI, respectively. Compared with the baseline period, both ALI and AKI risks were increased significantly during the pre-exposure period (ALI: IRR = 6.169, 95% CI = 4.549-8.365; AKI: IRR = 7.074, 95% CI = 3.763-13.298) and remained elevated during remdesivir treatment. Compared to the pre-exposure period, risks of ALI and AKI were not significantly higher in the first 2 days of remdesivir initiation (ALI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.915-1.737; AKI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.889-1.789) and between days 2 and 5 of remdesivir treatment (ALI: IRR = 1.087, 95% CI = 0.793-1.489; AKI: IRR = 1.152, 95% CI = 0.821-1.616). CONCLUSION: The increased risks of AKI and ALI associated with intravenous remdesivir treatment for COVID-19 may be due to the underlying SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks of AKI and ALI were elevated in the pre-exposure period, yet no such increased risks were observed following remdesivir initiation when compared to the pre-exposure period.

Metformin Use in Relation to Clinical Outcomes and Hyperinflammatory Syndrome Among COVID-19 Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Propensity Score Analysis of a Territory-Wide Cohort.

Aim: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the association between metformin use and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with T2DM with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and admitted between January 21, 2020, and January 31, 2021 in Hong Kong were identified in our cohort. Exposure was defined as metformin use within 90 days prior to admission until hospital discharge for COVID-19. Primary outcome was defined as clinical improvement of ≥1 point on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (CPS). Other outcomes were hospital discharge, recovery, in-hospital death, acidosis, hyperinflammatory syndrome, length of hospitalization, and changes in WHO CPS score. Results: Metformin use was associated with greater odds of clinical improvement (OR = 2.74, p = 0.009), hospital discharge (OR = 2.26, p = 0.009), and recovery (OR = 2.54, p = 0.005), in addition to lower odds of hyperinflammatory syndrome (OR = 0.71, p = 0.021) and death (OR = 0.41, p = 0.010) than control. Patients on metformin treatment had a shorter hospital stay (-2.76 days, p = 0.017) than their control counterparts. The average WHO CPS scores were significantly lower in metformin users than non-users since day 15 (p < 0.001). However, metformin use was associated with higher odds of acidosis. Conclusions: Metformin use was associated with lower mortality and lower odds for hyperinflammatory syndrome. This provides additional insights into the potential mechanisms of the benefits of metformin use in T2DM patients with COVID-19.