Effect of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine on Thyroid Function and Autoimmunity Within 28 Days After the Second Dose.

Background: The safety of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines is widely appreciated. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on the thyroid. Methods: We performed two prospective clinical trials between April and June, 2021, enrolling recipients of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac). Thyroid function, antithyroid antibody levels, and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels were detected for each participant before receiving the first vaccine dose and 28 days after receiving the second vaccine dose. Results: A total of 657 recipients participated in the study. The overall median thyroid function and levels of antithyroid antibodies before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were within the normal range. Among the 564 participants with normal thyroid function at baseline, 36 (6.38% [confidence interval; CI 4.51-8.73]) developed thyroid dysfunction. Of the 545 recipients with negative antithyroid antibodies at baseline, none developed abnormal antibodies after vaccination. Notably, 75.27% (70/93 [CI 65.24-83.63]) of the 93 recipients with thyroid dysfunction returned to normal function after vaccination. The levels of antithyroid peroxidase antibody (96.20% [CI 89.30-99.21]) and antithyroglobulin antibody (TgAb; 88.31% [CI 78.97-94.51]) remained positive after vaccination in most patients with abnormal values at baseline. However, the TgAb levels in more than half of the patients (48/77) decreased. All of 11 abnormal thyrotropin receptor antibody levels at baseline decreased postvaccination. Conclusions: Vaccination with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had no significant adverse impact on thyroid function or antithyroid antibodies within the first 28 days after the second dose. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100045109 and ChiCTR2100042222.

Safety measures for COVID-19 do not compromise the outcomes of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a single center retrospective study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic impacting nearly 170 countries/regions and millions of patients worldwide. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still need to be treated at percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers with relevant safety measures. This retrospective study was conducted to assess the therapeutic outcomes of PCI performed under the safety measures and normal conditions. AMI patients undergoing PCI between January 24 to April 30, 2020 were performed under safety measures for COVID-19. Patients received pulmonary computed tomography (CT) and underwent PCI in negative pressure ICU. Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff and physicians worked with level III personal protection. Demographic and clinical data, such as door-to-balloon (DTB) time, operation time, complications for patients in this period (COVID-19 group) and the same period in 2019 (2019 group) were retrieved and analyzed. COVID-19 and 2019 groups had 37 and 96 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in age, gender, BMI and comorbidity between the two groups. DTB time and operation time were similar between the two groups (60.0 ± 12.39 vs 58.83 ± 12.85 min, p = 0.636; 61.46 ± 9.91 vs 62.55 ± 10.72 min, p = 0.592). Hospital stay time in COVID-19 group was significantly shorter (6.78 ± 2.14 vs 8.85 ± 2.64 days, p < 0.001). The incidences of malignant arrhythmia and Takotsubo Syndrome in COVID-19 group were higher than 2019 group significantly (16.22% vs 5.21%, p = 0.039; 10.81% vs 1.04% p = 0.008). During hospitalization and 3-month follow-up, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in the two groups were statistically similar (35.13% vs 14.58%, p = 0.094; 16.22% vs 8.33%, p = 0.184). The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was associated with cardiogenic shock (OR, 11.53; 95% CI, 2.888-46.036; p = 0.001), malignant arrhythmias (OR, 7.176; 95% CI, 1.893-27.203; p = 0.004) and advanced age (≥ 75 years) (OR, 6.718; 95% CI, 1.738-25.964; p = 0.006). Cardiogenic shock (OR, 17.663; 95% CI, 5.5-56.762; p < 0.001) and malignant arrhythmias (OR, 4.659; 95% CI, 1.481-14.653; p = 0.008) were also associated with death of 3 months. Our analysis showed that safety measures undertaken in this hospital, including screening of COVID-19 infection and use of personal protection equipment for conducting PCI did not compromise the surgical outcome as compared with PCI under normal condition, although there were slight increases in incidence of malignant arrhythmia and Takotsubo Syndrome.

Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality in Severe and Critical COVID-19 Patients in Wuhan, China.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are now recommended in many treatment guidelines, although supporting evidence is limited to 1 randomized controlled clinical trial (RECOVERY). OBJECTIVE: To identify whether corticosteroids were beneficial to COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A total of 1514 severe and 249 critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients from 2 medical centers in Wuhan, China. Multivariable Cox models, Cox model with time-varying exposure and propensity score analysis (inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting [IPTW] and propensity score matching [PSM]) were used to estimate the association of corticosteroid use with risk of in-hospital mortality in severe and critical cases. RESULTS: Corticosteroids were administered in 531 (35.1%) severe and 159 (63.9%) critical patients. Compared to the non-corticosteroid group, systemic corticosteroid use was not associated with beneficial effect in reducing in-hospital mortality in either severe cases (HR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.08-2.89; P = 0.023), or critical cases (HR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.08-3.98; P = 0.028). Findings were similar in time-varying Cox analysis. For patients with severe COVID-19 at admission, corticosteroid use was not associated with improved or harmful outcome in either PSM or IPTW analysis. For critical COVID-19 patients at admission, results were consistent with multivariable Cox model analysis. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid use was not associated with beneficial effect in reducing in-hospital mortality for severe or critical cases in Wuhan. Absence of the beneficial effect in our study in contrast to that observed in the RECOVERY clinical trial may be due to biases in observational data, in particular prescription by indication bias, differences in clinical characteristics of patients, choice of corticosteroid used, timing of initiation of treatment, and duration of treatment.

Elevation of blood glucose level predicts worse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: With intense deficiency of medical resources during COVID-19 pandemic, risk stratification is of strategic importance. Blood glucose level is an important risk factor for the prognosis of infection and critically ill patients. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of blood glucose level in patients with COVID-19. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We collected clinical and survival information of 2041 consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from two medical centers in Wuhan. Patients without available blood glucose level were excluded. We performed multivariable Cox regression to calculate HRs of blood glucose-associated indexes for the risk of progression to critical cases/mortality among non-critical cases, as well as in-hospital mortality in critical cases. Sensitivity analysis were conducted in patient without diabetes. RESULTS: Elevation of admission blood glucose level was an independent risk factor for progression to critical cases/death among non-critical cases (HR=1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.63, p=0.026). Elevation of initial blood glucose level of critical diagnosis was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality in critical cases (HR=1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.98, p=0.013). Higher median glucose level during hospital stay or after critical diagnosis (≥6.1 mmol/L) was independently associated with increased risks of progression to critical cases/death among non-critical cases, as well as in-hospital mortality in critical cases. Above results were consistent in the sensitivity analysis in patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Elevation of blood glucose level predicted worse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our findings may provide a simple and practical way to risk stratify COVID-19 inpatients for hierarchical management, particularly where medical resources are in severe shortage during the pandemic.