Obesity as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the world has struggled with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the introduction of various vaccines, this disease still takes a considerable toll. In order to improve the optimal allocation of resources and communication of prognosis, healthcare providers and patients need an accurate understanding of factors (such as obesity) that are associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes from the COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate obesity as an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality among adult patients in whom infection with the COVID-19 virus is confirmed. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, two COVID-19 reference collections, and four Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included case-control, case-series, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials if they evaluated associations between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes including mortality, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalisation, severe COVID, and COVID pneumonia. Given our interest in ascertaining the independent association between obesity and these outcomes, we selected studies that adjusted for at least one factor other than obesity. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by two independent reviewers working in duplicate.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using standardised data extraction forms, we extracted relevant information from the included studies. When appropriate, we pooled the estimates of association across studies with the use of random-effects meta-analyses. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool provided the platform for assessing the risk of bias across each included study. In our main comparison, we conducted meta-analyses for each obesity class separately. We also meta-analysed unclassified obesity and obesity as a continuous variable (5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (body mass index)). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty in the importance of the association observed between obesity and each outcome. As obesity is closely associated with other comorbidities, we decided to prespecify the minimum adjustment set of variables including age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease for subgroup analysis.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 171 studies, 149 of which were included in meta-analyses.  As compared to 'normal' BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) or patients without obesity, those with obesity classes I (BMI 30 to 35 kg/m2), and II (BMI 35 to 40 kg/m2) were not at increased odds for mortality (Class I: odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.16, high certainty (15 studies, 335,209 participants); Class II: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36, high certainty (11 studies, 317,925 participants)). However, those with class III obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 and above) may be at increased odds for mortality (Class III: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00, low certainty, (19 studies, 354,967 participants)) compared to normal BMI or patients without obesity. For mechanical ventilation, we observed increasing odds with higher classes of obesity in comparison to normal BMI or patients without obesity (class I: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, 10 studies, 187,895 participants, moderate certainty; class II: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.96, 6 studies, 171,149 participants, high certainty; class III: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.97, 12 studies, 174,520 participants, high certainty). However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship across increasing obesity classifications for ICU admission and hospitalisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that obesity is an important independent prognostic factor in the setting of COVID-19. Consideration of obesity may inform the optimal management and allocation of limited resources in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Maternal-Neonatal Outcomes of Obstetric Deliveries Performed in Negative Pressure Isolation Rooms during the COVID-19 Omicron Variant Pandemic in Taiwan: A Retrospective Cohort Study of a Single Institution.

Objective: To investigate the maternal-neonatal outcomes of obstetric deliveries performed in negative pressure isolated delivery rooms (NPIDRs) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) omicron variant pandemic period in a single tertiary center in northern Taiwan. Methods: Confirmed positive and suspected-positive COVID-19 cases delivered in NPIDRs and COVID-19-negative mothers delivered in conventional delivery rooms (CDRs) in the period of 1 May 2022 to 31 May 2022 during the COVID-19 omicron variant pandemic stage were reviewed. The maternal-neonatal outcomes between the two groups of mothers were analyzed. All deliveries were performed following the obstetric and neonatologic protocols conforming to the epidemic prevention regulations promulgated by the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (T-CDC). Multiple gestations, deliveries at gestational age below 34 weeks, and major fetal anomalies were excluded from this study. Results: A total of 213 obstetric deliveries were included. Forty-five deliveries were performed in NPIDRs due to a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (n = 41) or suspected COVID-19 positive status (n = 4). One hundred and sixty-eight deliveries with negative COVID-19 PCR tests were performed in CDRs. There was no statistical difference in maternal characteristics between the two groups of pregnant women. All COVID-19-confirmed cases either presented with mild upper-airway symptoms (78%) or were asymptomatic (22%); none of these cases developed severe acute respiratory syndrome. The total rate of cesarean section was not statistically different between obstetric deliveries in NPIDRs and in CDRs (38.1% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.82, respectively). Regardless of delivery modes, poorer short-term perinatal outcomes were observed in obstetric deliveries in NPIDRs: there were significant higher rates of neonatal respiratory distress (37.8% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001, respectively), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (22.2% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001, respectively) and newborn intensive care unit admission (55.6% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001, respectively) in obstetric deliveries performed in NPIDRs than in CDRs. Maternal surgical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups of patients. There was no vertical transmission or nosocomial infection observed in COVID-19 confirmed cases in this study period. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that obstetric deliveries for positive and suspected COVID-19 omicron-variant cases performed in NPIDRs are associated with poorer short-term perinatal outcomes. Reasonable use of personal protective equipment in NPIDRs could effectively prevent nosocomial infection during obstetric deliveries for pregnant women infected with the COVID-19 omicron variant.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Subtyping CKD Patients by Consensus Clustering: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.

BACKGROUND: CKD is a heterogeneous condition with multiple underlying causes, risk factors, and outcomes. Subtyping CKD with multidimensional patient data holds the key to precision medicine. Consensus clustering may reveal CKD subgroups with different risk profiles of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We used unsupervised consensus clustering on 72 baseline characteristics among 2696 participants in the prospective Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study to identify novel CKD subgroups that best represent the data pattern. Calculation of the standardized difference of each parameter used the cutoff of ±0.3 to show subgroup features. CKD subgroup associations were examined with the clinical end points of kidney failure, the composite outcome of cardiovascular diseases, and death. RESULTS: The algorithm revealed three unique CKD subgroups that best represented patients' baseline characteristics. Patients with relatively favorable levels of bone density and cardiac and kidney function markers, with lower prevalence of diabetes and obesity, and who used fewer medications formed cluster 1 (n=1203). Patients with higher prevalence of diabetes and obesity and who used more medications formed cluster 2 (n=1098). Patients with less favorable levels of bone mineral density, poor cardiac and kidney function markers, and inflammation delineated cluster 3 (n=395). These three subgroups, when linked with future clinical end points, were associated with different risks of CKD progression, cardiovascular disease, and death. Furthermore, patient heterogeneity among predefined subgroups with similar baseline kidney function emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus clustering synthesized the patterns of baseline clinical and laboratory measures and revealed distinct CKD subgroups, which were associated with markedly different risks of important clinical outcomes. Further examination of patient subgroups and associated biomarkers may provide next steps toward precision medicine.