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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.