Clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir on the short- and long-term outcome in high-risk children with COVID-19.

This study investigated the clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) on short-term outcome and the risk of postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) among pediatric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX research network to identify pediatric patients between 12 and 18 years with COVID-19 between January 1, 2022 and August 31, 2023. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to match patients receiving NMV-r (NMV-r group) with those who did not receive NMV-r (control group). Two cohorts comprising 633 patients each (NMV-r and control groups), with balanced baseline characteristics, were identified using the PSM method. During the initial 30 days, the NMV-r group showed a lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization, mortality, or ED visits (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.546, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.372-0.799, p = 0.002). Additionally, the NMV-r group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with the control group (HR = 0.463, 95% CI: 0.269-0.798), with no deaths occurring in either group. In the 30-180-day follow-up period, the NMV-r group exhibited a non-significantly lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), encompassing symptoms such as fatigue, cardiopulmonary symptoms, pain, cognitive impairments, headache, dizziness, sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression, compared to the control group. This study underscores the potential effectiveness of NMV-r in treating high-risk pediatric patients with COVID-19, demonstrating significant reductions in short-term adverse outcomes such as emergency department visits, hospitalization, or mortality within the initial 30-day period. Additionally, NMV-r shows promise in potentially preventing the development of PASC.

Effectiveness of recently-approved oral antiviral medications on the outcome of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effectiveness of the oral antiviral agents nirmatrelvir - ritonavir (NMV-r) and molnupiravir (MOV) for treating mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study extracted data from the TriNetX platform and examined 94,984 COVID-19 patients with preexisting COPD from 1 January 2022, to 1 October 2023. Patients receiving NMV-r or MOV (study group) were compared with those not receiving oral antiviral agents (control group) after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: After PSM, 7,944 patients were classified into the study and control groups. The primary composite outcome of all-cause hospitalization, or death in 30 days was reported in 458 (5.7%) patients in the study group and 566 (7.1%) patients in the control cohort, yielding a hazard ratio [HR] of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.89; Table 2). Compared with the control group, the study group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76-0.99) and death (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.13-0.35). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that oral antivirals - NMV-r or MOV might improve clinical outcomes in patients with preexisting COPD and COVID-19. However, only a small proportion of preexisting COPD patients with COVID-19 received oral antiviral treatment.

Clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 and preexisting psychiatric disorders.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the clinical effectiveness of the combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (NMV-r) in treating nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 who have preexisting psychiatric disorders. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and psychiatric disorders between 1 March 2020, and 1 December 2022, were included using the TriNetX network. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded two cohorts of 20,633 patients each. The composite outcome of all-cause ED visits, hospitalization, or death within 30 days was 3.57% (737 patients) in the NMV-r cohort and 5.69% (1176) in the control cohort, resulting in a reduced risk in the NMV-r cohort (HR: 0.657; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.599-0.720). The NMV-r cohort exhibited a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.385; 95% CI: 0.328-0.451) and all-cause death (HR: 0.110; 95% CI: 0.053-0.228) compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: NMV-r could mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting psychiatric disorders. However, only a limited number of patients in this population received adequate treatment, thus emphasizing the importance of promoting its appropriate use.

The effectiveness of novel oral antiviral treatment for non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during predominance of omicron XBB subvariants.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the association between nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) or molnupiravir and the outcomes of non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during Omicron XBB subvariants. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX US collaborative network to identify non-hospitalized high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 between 1 February 2023, and 31 August 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients receiving NMV-r or MOV (the study group) with those not receiving antivirals (the control group). RESULTS: Using PSM, two cohorts of 17,654 patients each with balanced baseline characteristics were identified. During the follow-up period, the study group had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, or death (3.2% [n = 564] versus 3.8% [n = 669]; HR, 0.796; 95% confidence interval [CI], 95% CI, 0.712-0.891). Compared with the control group, the study group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (3.1% vs. 3.4%; HR, 0.847; 95% CI, 0.754-0.950) and mortality (0.1% vs. 0.4%; HR, 0.295; 95% CI, 0.183-0.476). CONCLUSION: The use of novel oral antiviral including NMV-r or MOV can be associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, or death in non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during Omicron XBB wave.

Clinical effectiveness of oral antiviral agents for treating non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) and molnupiravir (MOV) in treating COVID-19 among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, using the TriNetX research network, identified stage 3-5 CKD and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients with non-hospitalized COVID-19 between 1 January 2022, and 31 May 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare patients on NMV-r or MOV (antiviral group) against those not receiving these treatments (control group). The primary composite outcome was the cumulative hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause hospitalization or death within the 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: After PSM, two balanced cohorts of 6,275 patients each were established. The antiviral group exhibited a lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization or mortality (5.93% vs. 9.53%; HR: 0.626; 95% CI: 0.550-0.713) than controls. Additionally, antiviral recipients were associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.594-0.777) and mortality (HR: 0.338; 95% CI: 0.227-0.504). The beneficial effects of antiviral agents were consistent across sex, age, vaccination status, antiviral type, and CKD stage. CONCLUSION: Oral antiviral agents could be associated with lower rates of all-cause hospitalization or death among non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CKD.

The effectiveness of oral anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a retrospective study.

Background: The effectiveness of the novel oral antiviral agents, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and molnupiravir, in treating COVID-19 in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is unclear. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of novel oral antiviral agents against COVID-19 among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX Research Network to identify non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease between 1 January 2022, and 30 June 2023. Propensity score matching was used to form two matched cohorts treated with or without nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir. Results: In the two matched cohorts of 6,358 patients each, the use of novel oral antiviral agents was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause emergency department visits, hospitalization, or mortality (6.59% versus 8.24%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.91). The novel antiviral group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause emergency department visits (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Additionally, the incidence of hospitalization was significantly lower in the oral antiviral group than in the control group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.90). There were no deaths in the oral antiviral group but 12 deaths in the control group. Conclusion: Novel oral antiviral agents are beneficial for treating COVID-19 in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Comparative outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 primary and reinfection in older adult patients.

Background: The outcomes of older adult people acquiring SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of older adult patients with COVID-19 reinfection and those with primary infection. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records from the TriNetX Research Network. Older adult patients (aged ≥65 years) with COVID-19 between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were included in the study. The patients were subsequently categorized into reinfection or primary infection groups, according to whether they manifested two distinct COVID-19 episodes with an intervening period of more than 90 days. Propensity score matching was performed for covariate adjustment between the reinfection and primary infection groups. The primary outcome was a composite outcome, including emergency department visits, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation use, and mortality, following primary infection and reinfection. Results: After matching, 31,899 patients were identified in both the reinfection and primary infection groups. The risk of primary composite outcomes was 7.15% (n = 2,281) in the reinfection group and 7.53% (n = 2,403) in the primary infection group. No significant difference in the primary outcome was observed between groups (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02, p = 0.17). In addition, there was no significant differences between the reinfection and primary infection groups in terms of emergency department visit (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11, p = 0.49), all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02, p = 0.14), intensive care unit admission (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.28, p = 0.62), mechanical ventilation use (HR,1.35 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.64 p = 0.38), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.20, p = 0.62). Conclusion: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between older adult patients with COVID-19 reinfection and those with primary infection.

Clinical efficacy of N-acetylcysteine for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The association between N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and COVID-19 remains undetermined; therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of NAC in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods: This study searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published from their inception to December 17, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy of NAC for patients with COVID-19 were included. Results: Five RCTs involving 651 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between the study group receiving NAC and the control group (15.6 % [50/320] vs. 32.3 %, [107/331]; risk ratio [RR]: 0.58; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-1.40). In addition, the two groups did not differ with respect to the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.93; 95 % CI: 0.65-1.33), the risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR: 0.86; 95 % CI: 0.62-1.21), the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 0.17 days; 95 % CI: -0.67-1.01), and the length of ICU stay (MD: -0.77 days; 95 % CI: -2.97-1.42). Conclusions: The administration of NAC did not improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19; its routine use is not recommended for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The clinical outcomes and effectiveness of antiviral agents among underweight patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the outcomes of underweight patients with COVID-19 and the effectiveness of antiviral agents in this population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using theTriNetX research network was conducted. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the first cohort involving COVID-19 patients with underweight and normal-weight. In the second cohort, underweight patients receiving antiviral agents and untreated individuals were matched using PSM. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause hospitalization and death during the 7-30-day follow-up period. RESULTS: After PSM, the first cohort including each group of 13,502 patients with balanced baseline characteristics were identified for comparing the outcome of patients with underweight and normal weight. The underweight group had a higher risk of the composite primary outcome than those with normal weight (hazard ratio [HR], 1.251; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.132-1.382). The second cohort included each 884 underweight patients with and without receiving antivirals.Compared with untreated patients, those receiving antiviral treatment had a lower risk of composite primary outcomes (HR, 0.426; 95% CI, 0.278-0.653). CONCLUSION: Underweight status may be associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization and death in patients with COVID-19.Among underweight patients, antiviral agents demonstrated clinically beneficial effects.

Impact of intravenous dexmedetomidine on postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) is a complication that may occur after abdominal or nonabdominal surgery. Intravenous dexmedetomidine (Dex) has been reported to accelerate postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery; however, updated evidence is required to confirm its robustness. METHODS: To identify randomized controlled trials examining the effects of perioperative intravenous Dex on gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched on August 2023. The primary outcome was time to first flatus. Secondary outcomes included time to oral intake and defecation as well as postoperative pain scores, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV), risk of hemodynamic instability, and length of hospital stay (LOS). To confirm its robustness, subgroup analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials with 2566 patients showed that Dex significantly reduced the time to flatus [mean difference (MD):-7.19 h, P <0.00001), time to oral intake (MD: -6.44 h, P =0.001), time to defecation (MD:-13.84 h, P =0.008), LOS (MD:-1.08 days, P <0.0001), and PONV risk (risk ratio: 0.61, P <0.00001) without differences in hemodynamic stability and pain severity compared with the control group. Trial sequential analysis supported sufficient evidence favoring Dex for accelerating bowel function. Subgroup analyses confirmed the positive impact of Dex on the time to flatus across different surgical categories and sexes. However, this benefit has not been observed in studies conducted in regions outside China. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative intravenous Dex may enhance postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery and reduce LOS, thereby validating its use in patients for whom postoperative ileus is a significant concern.

Clinical efficacy of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir in patients with COVID-19 and preexisting cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the clinical efficacy of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in treating patients with COVID-19 who have preexisting cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). METHODS: Patients with underlying CVDs and COVID-19 were included from the TriNetX network. We employed a 1:1 propensity score matching to create two comparable cohorts: patients receiving NMV-r and those not receiving NMV-r. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of all-cause hospitalization or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded two matched cohorts of 10,847 patients each. The composite outcomes of all-cause hospitalization or death within 30 days were 2.2% (239 patients) in the NMV-r cohort and 4.7% (512 patients) in the control cohort, indicating reduced risk in the NMV-r cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 0.475; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0407-0.533). The NMV-r cohort exhibited lower risks of all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.525; 95% CI, 0.449-0.615) and mortality (HR, 0.113; 95% CI, 0.052-0.246) compared with the control group. A similar trend was observed across most of the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that NMV-r to treat COVID-19 could reduce all-cause hospitalization and death in patients with CVDs.

Efficacy of electroacupuncture in improving postoperative ileus in patients receiving colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) in improving postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases (e.g. Medline) were screened to identify randomized controlled trials that focused on the association between EA and postoperative ileus. Time to first flatus served as the primary outcome, while the secondary outcomes included time required for the recovery of other gastrointestinal functions (e.g. bowel sound recovery), time to tolerability of liquid/solid food, postoperative pain scores, risk of overall complications, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis focusing on 16 studies with a total of 1562 patients demonstrated positive associations of EA with shorter times to the first flatus [mean difference (MD): -10.1 h, P <0.00001, n =1562], first defecation (MD: -11.77 h, P <0.00001, n =1231), bowel sound recovery (MD: -10.76 h, P <0.00001, n =670), tolerability of liquid (MD: -16.44 h, P =0.0002, n =243), and solid food (MD: -17.21 h, P =0.005, n =582) than those who received standard care. The use of EA was also correlated with a lower risk of overall complications (risk ratio:0.71, P =0.04, n =1011), shorter hospital length of stay (MD: -1.22 days, P =0.0001, n =988), and a lower pain score on postoperative days two (standardized MD: -0.87, P =0.009, n =665) and three (standardized MD: -0.45, P <0.00001, n =795), without a difference in time to first ambulation. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed an association between EA and enhanced gastrointestinal functional recovery and reduced pain severity following colorectal surgery, highlighting the potential benefits of incorporating EA into perioperative care to enhance recovery outcomes in this setting.

Efficacy of propofol-based anesthesia against risk of brain swelling during craniotomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of brain swelling during craniotomy between propofol-based and volatile-based anesthesia. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING: Operating room. INTERVENTION: Propofol-based anesthesia. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing craniotomy. MEASUREMENTS: Databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was the risk of brain swelling, while the secondary outcomes included the impact of anesthetic regimens on surgical and recovery outcomes, as well as the risk of hemodynamic instability. MAIN RESULTS: Our meta-analysis of 17 RCTs showed a significantly lower risk of brain swelling (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85, p = 0.03, I2 = 21%, n = 1976) in patients receiving propofol than in those using volatile agents, without significant differences in surgical time or blood loss between the two groups. Moreover, propofol was associated with a lower intracranial pressure (ICP) (mean difference: -4.06 mmHg, p < 0.00001, I2 = 44%, n = 409) as well as a lower risk of tachycardia (RR = 0.54, p = 0.005, I2 = 0%, n = 822) and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) (RR = 0.59, p = 0.002, I2 = 19%, n = 1382). There were no significant differences in other recovery outcomes (e.g., extubation time), risk of bradycardia, hypertension, or hypotension between the two groups. Subgroup analysis indicated that propofol was not associated with a reduced risk of brain swelling when compared to individual volatile agents. Stratified by craniotomy indications, propofol reduced brain swelling in elective craniotomy, but not in emergency craniotomy (e.g., traumatic brain injury), when compared to volatile anesthetics. CONCLUSIONS: By reviewing the available evidence, our results demonstrate the beneficial effects of propofol on the risk of brain swelling, ICP, PONV, and intraoperative tachycardia. In emergency craniotomy for traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage, brain swelling showed no significant difference between propofol and volatile agents. Further large-scale studies are warranted for verification.

Association between vitamin D deficiency and post-acute outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the association between vitamin D deficiency (VDD) and post-acute outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: This retrospective study used the TriNetX research network to identify COVID-19 patients between January 1 and November 30, 2022. Patients were matched using propensity score matching (PSM) and divided into VDD (< 20 ng/mL) and control (≥ 20 ng/mL) groups. The primary outcome was a composite of post-COVID-19 condition (identified by ICD-10 code), all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, and death during the follow-up period (90-180 days) after the diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: From an initial recruitment of 42,674 non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and known 25(OH)D status, a VDD group of 8300 was identified and propensity matched with 8300 controls. During the follow-up period, the VDD group had a higher risk of the primary outcome than did the control group [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.122; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.041-1.210]. The VDD group also had a higher risk of all-cause ED visits (HR = 1.114; 95% CI = 1.012-1.226), all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.230; 95% CI = 1.105-1.369), and all-cause death (HR = 1.748; 95% CI = 1.047-2.290) but not post-COVID-19 condition (HR = 0.980; 95% CI = 0.630-1.523), individually. CONCLUSION: Among the COVID-19 patients, VDD might be associated with a higher risk of all-cause ED visits, hospitalization, and death during the post-acute phase.

Diagnostic efficacy of the triglyceride-glucose index in the prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy following percutaneous coronary intervention.

Introduction: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a common complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Identifying patients at high CIN risk remains challenging. The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index may help predict CIN but evidence is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of TyG index for CIN after PCI. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE until August 2023 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023452257). Observational studies examining TyG index for predicting CIN risk in PCI patients were included. This diagnostic meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the TyG index in predicting the likelihood of CIN. Secondary outcomes aimed to assess the pooled incidence of CIN and the association between an elevated TyG index and the risk of CIN. Results: Five studies (Turkey, n=2; China, n=3) with 3518 patients (age range: 57.6 to 68.22 years) were included. The pooled incidence of CIN was 15.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11-20.8%]. A high TyG index associated with increased CIN risk (odds ratio: 2.25, 95% CI 1.82-2.77). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95% CI 0.59-0.88) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.43-0.68) respectively. Analysis of the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve revealed an area under the curve of 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73). There was a low risk of publication bias (p = 0.81). Conclusion: The TyG index displayed a noteworthy correlation with the risk of CIN subsequent to PCI. However, its overall diagnostic accuracy was found to be moderate in nature. While promising, the TyG index should not be used in isolation for CIN screening given the heterogeneity between studies. In addition, the findings cannot be considered conclusive given the scarcity of data. Further large-scale studies are warranted to validate TyG cutoffs and determine how to optimally incorporate it into current risk prediction models. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023452257, identifier CRD42023452257.

Association between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

Background: Systemic inflammation is one of the underlying mechanisms of cognitive impairment. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has emerged as a systemic inflammation indicator. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between high NLR and cognitive impairment (CI) risk. Method: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted to identify eligible studies published until May 30, 2023. The reference group comprised patients with the lowest NLR level, whereas the exposure group comprised those with the highest NLR level. The main outcome was to examine the relationship between NLR and CI risk. The secondary outcome included the association between patient characteristics or comorbidities and CI risk. Results: This meta-analysis included 11 studies published between 2018 and 2023, involving 10,357 patients. Patients with CI had a higher NLR than those without (mean difference=0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.44, p < 00001, I2 = 86%). Consistently, pooled results revealed an association between high NLR and CI risk (odds ratio [OR]=2.53, 95% CI:1.67-3.82, p<0.0001, I2 = 84%). Furthermore, aging (mean difference =4.31 years, 95% CI:2.83-5.8, p < 0.00001, I2 = 92%), diabetes (OR=1.59, 95% CI:1.35-1.88, p < 0.00001, I2 = 66%), and hypertension (OR=1.36, 95% CI:1.19-1.57, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) were significant risk factors for CI. However, no significant associations were observed between CI and male gender (OR = 0.84, 95% CI:0.64-1.11, p = 0.22, I2 = 81%), body mass index (mean = -0.32 kg/m2, 95% CI: -0.82, 0.18, p = 0.2, I2 = 82%), alcohol consumption (OR = 1.11, 95% CI:0.95-1.3, p = 1.35, I2 = 0%), and smoking (OR = 0.99, 95% CI:0.87-1.13, p = 0.86, I2 = 0%). Meta-regression found that diabetes and hypertension, but not age, significantly moderated the association between NLR and CI. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed a significant association between high NLR and increased CI risk. Moreover, meta-regression identified diabetes and hypertension, but not age, as significant moderating factors in the relationship between NLR and CI. To validate and strengthen these findings, further large-scale studies are required. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023430384, identifier CRD42023430384.

Comparison of post-acute sequelae following hospitalization for COVID-19 and influenza.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the risk and magnitude of post-acute sequelae following COVID-19 and influenza, and most of these studies were conducted before emergence of the Omicron. This study investigated the prevalence of post-COVID conditions and the long-term risk of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in patients with COVID-19 and compared their risk with that of patients with influenza. METHODS: A retrospective study based on the TriNetX databases, a global health research network. We identified patients with COVID-19 and influenza who required hospitalization between January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023. We compared the risk of developing any post-COVID conditions between the two groups and also analyzed each post-COVID-19 condition and all-cause ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in both populations during the follow-up 90-180 days. RESULTS: Before matching, 7,187 patients with COVID-19 were older (63.9 ± 16.7 vs. 55.4 ± 21.2) and were predominantly male (54.0% vs. 45.4%), and overweight/obese (16.1% vs. 11.2%) than 11,266 individuals with influenza. After propensity score matching, 6,614 patients were identified in each group, resulting in well-balanced baseline characteristics. During follow-up, the COVID-19 group had a higher incidence of any post-COVID-19 condition when compared with the influenza group (17.9% vs. 13.0%), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.398 (95% CI, 1.251-1.562). Compared to the influenza group, the COVID-19 group had a significantly higher incidence of abnormal breathing (HR, 1.506; 95% CI, 1.246-1.822), abdominal symptoms (HR, 1.313; HR, 1.034-1.664), fatigue (HR, 1.486; 95% CI, 1.158-1.907), and cognitive symptoms (HR, 1.815; 95% CI, 1.235-2.668). Moreover, the COVID-19 group had a significantly higher risk of the composite outcomes during all-cause ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths when compared with the influenza group (27.5% vs. 21.7; HR, 1.303; 95% CI, 1.194-1.422). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that hospitalized COVID-19 patients are at a higher risk of long-term complications when compared with influenza survivors.

Diagnostic efficacy of serum presepsin for postoperative infectious complications: a meta-analysis.

Background: Postoperative infectious complications (PICs) are major concerns. Early and accurate diagnosis is critical for timely treatment and improved outcomes. Presepsin is an emerging biomarker for bacterial infections. However, its diagnostic efficacy for PICs across surgical specialties remains unclear. Methods: In this study, a systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library was performed on September 30, 2023, to identify studies that evaluated presepsin for diagnosing PICs. PIC is defined as the development of surgical site infection or remote infection. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were calculated. The primary outcome was the assessment of the efficacy of presepsin for PIC diagnosis, and the secondary outcome was the investigation of the reliability of procalcitonin or C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of PICs. Results: This meta-analysis included eight studies (n = 984) and revealed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of presepsin for PIC diagnosis were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68%-82%) and 83% (95% CI 75%-89%), respectively. The HSROC curve yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI 0.73-0.81). Analysis of six studies on procalcitonin showed a combined sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 77%, with an AUC of 0.83 derived from the HSROC. Meanwhile, data from five studies on CRP indicated pooled sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 79%, with the HSROC curve yielding an AUC of 0.89. Conclusion: Presepsin exhibits moderate diagnostic accuracy for PIC across surgical disciplines. Based on the HSROC-derived AUC, CRP has the highest diagnostic efficacy for PICs, followed by procalcitonin and presepsin. Nonetheless, presepsin demonstrated greater specificity than the other biomarkers. Further study is warranted to validate the utility of and optimize the cutoff values for presepsin. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023468358.

Post-COVID-19 condition risk in patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a retrospective cohort study involving 36,308 patients.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have investigated the prevalence of post-COVID-19 conditions in patients with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD). Addressing this research gap is crucial, as understanding post-COVID-19 conditions in IDD patients can improve care planning, and it is essential not to overlook this vulnerable population in COVID-19 studies. This study was aimed at investigating the prevalence of post-COVID-19 conditions in patients with IDD and compare their risk with that of the general population. METHODS: Using the TriNetX network, we identified patients with and without an IDD who had COVID-19. Subsequently, we compared the risk of developing any post-COVID-19 condition between these two groups, during the 90-180-day follow-up after SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: During the follow-up, patients with an IDD exhibited a significantly higher prevalence of post-COVID-19 conditions compared to the general population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.120; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.053-1.191). Specifically, COVID-19 survivors with IDD had a significantly increased risk of experiencing abnormal breathing (HR, 1.216; 95% CI: 1.077-1.373), abdominal symptoms (HR, 1.259; 95% CI: 1.128-1.406), fatigue (HR, 1.397; 95% CI: 1.216-1.606), anxiety/depression (HR, 1.157; 95% CI: 1.050-1.274), cognitive symptoms (HR, 1.828; 95% CI: 1.529-2.186), myalgia (HR, 1.325; 95% CI: 1.077-1.631), sleep disturbances (HR, 1.481; 95% CI: 1.148-1.910), and cough (HR, 1.315; 95% CI: 1.146-1.508) compared to the non-IDD group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IDD might be associated with a higher risk of post-COVID-19 conditions following SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population.

Efficacy of the visual cognitive assessment test for mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia diagnosis: a meta-analysis.

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an intermediate stage between normal ageing and dementia. The early identification of MCI is important for timely intervention. The visual cognitive assessment test (VCAT) is a brief language-neutral screening tool for detecting MCI/mild dementia. This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the VCAT for MCI/mild dementia. Methods: Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until August 2023 to identify studies using VCAT to diagnose MCI/mild dementia. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the VCAT for detecting MCI/mild dementia through area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AU-ROC) analysis. The secondary outcome was to explore the correlation between VCAT scores and MCI/mild dementia presence by comparing scores among patients with and without MCI/mild dementia. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: Five studies with 1,446 older adults (mean age 64-68.3 years) were included. The percentage of participants with MCI/mild dementia versus controls ranged from 16.5% to 87% across studies. All studies were conducted in Asian populations, mostly Chinese, in Singapore and Malaysia. The pooled sensitivity was 80% [95% confidence interval (CI) 68%-88%] and the specificity was 75% (95% CI 68%-80%). The AU-ROCC was 0.77 (95% CI 0.73-0.81). Patients with MCI/mild dementia had lower VCAT scores than the controls (mean difference -6.85 points, p < 0.00001). Conclusion: VCAT demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing MCI/mild dementia in cognitively normal older adults. As a language-neutral and culturally unbiased tool, the VCAT shows promise in detecting MCI/mild dementia. Further studies in non-Asian populations are required. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023453453.