• COVID-19
• Other research productsclose
• 2018-2022close
• English close
• PAHO COVID19 close
• COVID-19 close

At present, COVID-19 is raging all over the world. Many comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.91–3.74) and hypertension (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.76–3.00), have been shown to worsen the patient’s condition. However, whether cardio-cerebrovascular disease will affect COVID-19 remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we collected studies from PubMed, Wed of Science and CNKI (Chinese) to July 25, which reported COVID-19 patients with and without cardio-cerebrovascular disease as well as their severity and mortality. The random-effect model meta-analysis was used to analyze them and get overall odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs. Funnel plots and the Begg’s and Egger’s test were used to assess publication bias. Thirty-one studies with 23,632 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. The results showed an OR of 3.004 (95% CI = 2.097–4.303) for COVID-19 severity and an OR of 5.587 (95% CI = 2.810–11.112) for COVID-19 mortality. Compared with cardiovascular disease, the subgroup analysis indicated that cerebrovascular disease was more likely to increase the severity (OR = 3.400, 95% CI = 1.569–7.368) and mortality (OR = 23.477, 95% CI = 3.050–180.735) of COVID-19. Therefore, it can be inferred that cardio-cerebrovascular disease is associated with an increase in the risk of severe illness and death among COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis showed that cardio-cerebrovascular disease has a significant relation with severe and death outcomes of COVID-19. Nurses should pay special attention to COVID-19 patients with the cardio-cerebrovascular disease.

The COVID-19 epidemic started in the Hubei province in China in December 2019 and then spread around the world reaching the pandemic stage at the beginning of March 2020. Since then, several countries went into lockdown. We estimate the effect of the lockdown in France on the contact rate and the effective reproduction number Re of the COVID-19. We obtain a reduction by a factor 7 (Re=0.47, 95%-CI: 0.45-0.50), compared to the estimates carried out in France at the early stage of the epidemic. We also estimate the fraction of the population that would be infected by the beginning of May, at the official date at which the lockdown should be relaxed. We find a fraction of 3.7% (95%-CI: 3.0-4.8%) of the total French population, without taking into account the number of recovered individuals before April 1st, which is not known. This proportion is seemingly too low to reach herd immunity. Thus, even if the lockdown strongly mitigated the first epidemic wave, keeping a low value of Re is crucial to avoid an uncontrolled second wave (initiated with much more infectious cases than the first wave) and to hence avoid the saturation of hospital facilities. Our approach is based on the mechanistic-statistical formalism, which uses a probabilistic model to connect the data collection process and the latent epidemiological process, which is described by a SIR-type differential equation model.

Aims: A newly emerged Human Coronavirus (HCoV) is reported two months ago in Wuhan, China (COVID-19). Until today >2700 deaths from the 80,000 confirmed cases reported mainly in China and 40 other countries. Human to human transmission is confirmed for COVID-19 by China a month ago. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) reports, SARS HCoV is responsible for >8000 cases with confirmed 774 deaths. Additionally, MERS HCoV is responsible for 858 deaths out of about 2500 reported cases. The current study aims to test anti-HCV drugs against COVID-19 RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Materials and methods: In this study, sequence analysis, modeling, and docking are used to build a model for Wuhan COVID-19 RdRp. Additionally, the newly emerged Wuhan HCoV RdRp model is targeted by anti-polymerase drugs, including the approved drugs Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin. Key findings: The results suggest the effectiveness of Sofosbuvir, IDX-184, Ribavirin, and Remidisvir as potent drugs against the newly emerged HCoV disease. Significance: The present study presents a perfect model for COVID-19 RdRp enabling its testing in silico against anti-polymerase drugs. Besides, the study presents some drugs that previously proved its efficiency against the newly emerged viral infection.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents and substantial mortality. It is critical to find new treatments. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma transfusion may be beneficial in the treatment of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: Case series of 5 critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who met the following criteria: severe pneumonia with rapid progression and continuously high viral load despite antiviral treatment; Pao2/Fio2 <300; and mechanical ventilation. All 5 were treated with convalescent plasma transfusion. The study was conducted at the infectious disease department, Shenzhen Third People's Hospital in Shenzhen, China, from January 20, 2020, to March 25, 2020; final date of follow-up was March 25, 2020. Clinical outcomes were compared before and after convalescent plasma transfusion. Exposures: Patients received transfusion with convalescent plasma with a SARS-CoV-2–specific antibody (IgG) binding titer greater than 1:1000 (end point dilution titer, by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) and a neutralization titer greater than 40 (end point dilution titer) that had been obtained from 5 patients who recovered from COVID-19. Convalescent plasma was administered between 10 and 22 days after admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes of body temperature, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range 0-24, with higher scores indicating more severe illness), Pao2/Fio2, viral load, serum antibody titer, routine blood biochemical index, ARDS, and ventilatory and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) supports before and after convalescent plasma transfusion. Results: All 5 patients (age range, 36-65 years; 2 women) were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment and all had received antiviral agents and methylprednisolone. Following plasma transfusion, body temperature normalized within 3 days in 4 of 5 patients, the SOFA score decreased, and Pao2/Fio2 increased within 12 days (range, 172-276 before and 284-366 after). Viral loads also decreased and became negative within 12 days after the transfusion, and SARS-CoV-2–specific ELISA and neutralizing antibody titers increased following the transfusion (range, 40-60 before and 80-320 on day 7). ARDS resolved in 4 patients at 12 days after transfusion, and 3 patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation within 2 weeks of treatment. Of the 5 patients, 3 have been discharged from the hospital (length of stay: 53, 51, and 55 days), and 2 are in stable condition at 37 days after transfusion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary uncontrolled case series of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, administration of convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody was followed by improvement in their clinical status. The limited sample size and study design preclude a definitive statement about the potential effectiveness of this treatment, and these observations require evaluation in clinical trials.

oronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has recently become a public emergency and a worldwide pandemic. The clinical symptoms of severe and non-severe patients vary, and the case-fatality rate (CFR) in severe COVID-19 patients is very high. However, the information on the risk factors associated with the severity of COVID-19 and of their prognostic potential is limited. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, treatment and outcome data were collected and analyzed from 223 COVID-19 patients stratified into 125 non-severe patients and 98 severe patients. In addition, a pooled large-scale meta-analysis of 1646 cases was performed. RESULTS: We found that the age, gender and comorbidities are the common risk factors associated with the severity of COVID-19. For the diagnosis markers, we found that the levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), procalcitonin (PCT) were significantly higher in severe group compared with the non-severe group on admission (D-Dimer: 87.3% vs. 35.3%, P<0.001; CRP, 65.1% vs. 13.5%, P<0.001; LDH: 83.9% vs. 22.2%, P<0.001; PCT: 35.1% vs. 2.2%, P<0.001), while the levels of aspartate aminotransferase (ASP) and creatinine kinase (CK) were only mildly increased. We also made a large scale meta-analysis of 1646 cases combined with 4 related literatures, and further confirmed the relationship between the COVID-19 severity and these risk factors. Moreover, we tracked dynamic changes during the process of COVID-19, and found CRP, D-dimer, LDH, PCT kept in high levels in severe patient. Among all these markers, D-dimer increased remarkably in severe patients and mostly related with the case-fatality rate (CFR). We found adjuvant antithrombotic treatment in some severe patients achieved good therapeutic effect in the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis markers CRP, D-dimer, LDH and PCT are associated with severity of COVID-19. Among these markers, D-dimer is sensitive for both severity and CFR of COVID-19. Treatment with heparin or other anticoagulants may be beneficial for COVID-19 patients.

What is this? Traditional Chinese medicine and other forms of herbal medicine have been suggested as treatments for COVID-19 patients. Several potentially relevant systematic reviews have been done and the findings are summarised here. More details on these reviews, including citations and links to their full text, are available further down this page. What was found: At the time of these reviews, the included studies suggest that herbal and traditional Chinese medicine (alone or in combination with Western treatment) may improve symptoms, and other patient outcomes, for patients with COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses. However, the conclusions of these reviews should be interpreted with caution because of the generally low quality of their included studies. The Xiong review (searches done up to 21 June 2020) reported that the potential benefits applied to COVID-19 patients irrespective of disease severity. The other reviews were limited to patients with mild-moderate infection or did not comment on disease severity. The effects of herbal and traditional Chinese medicine on mortality for COVID-19 patients with COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses are uncertain.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-e ects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%–99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%–81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%–55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%–41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%–23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%–17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%–17%, n=1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 109/L, 95% CI 0.83–1.03 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54–45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%–1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has evolved into a global pandemic. Low-dose colchicine combines anti-inflammatory action with a favorable safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with colchicine on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial (the Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention), 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized in a 1:1 allocation from April 3 to April 27, 2020, to either standard medical treatment or colchicine with standard medical treatment. The study took place in 16 tertiary hospitals in Greece. Intervention: Colchicine administration (1.5-mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg after 60 min and maintenance doses of 0.5 mg twice daily) with standard medical treatment for as long as 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were (1) maximum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level; (2) time for C-reactive protein to reach more than 3 times the upper reference limit; and (3) time to deterioration by 2 points on a 7-grade clinical status scale, ranging from able to resume normal activities to death. Secondary end points were (1) the percentage of participants requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) number, type, severity, and seriousness of adverse events. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated (61 [58.1%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [54-76] years) with 50 (47.6%) randomized to the control group and 55 (52.4%) to the colchicine group. Median (interquartile range) peak high-sensitivity cardiac troponin values were 0.0112 (0.0043-0.0093) ng/mL in the control group and 0.008 (0.004-0.0135) ng/mL in the colchicine group (P = .34). Median (interquartile range) maximum C-reactive protein levels were 4.5 (1.4-8.9) mg/dL vs 3.1 (0.8-9.8) mg/dL (P = .73), respectively. The clinical primary end point rate was 14.0% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Mean (SD) event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days the in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P = .03). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, except for diarrhea, which was more frequent with colchicine group than the control group (25 patients [45.5%] vs 9 patients [18.0%]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration. There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels. These findings should be interpreted with caution.

In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic and shortages of laboratory-based molecular testing capacity and reagents, multiple diagnostic test manufacturers have developed and begun selling rapid and easy-to-use devices to facilitate testing outside of laboratory settings. These simple test kits are based either on detection of proteins from the COVID-19 virus in respiratory samples (e.g. sputum, throat swab) or detection, in blood or serum, of human antibodies generated in response to infection. WHO applauds the efforts of test developers to innovate and respond to the needs of the population. However, before these tests can be recommended, they must be validated in the appropriate populations and settings. Inadequate tests may miss patients with active infection or falsely categorize patients as having the disease when they do not, further hampering disease control efforts. At present, based on current evidence, WHO recommends the use of these new point-of-care immunodiagnostic tests only in research settings. They should not be used in any other setting, including for clinical decision-making, until evidence supporting use for specific indications is available. WHO continues to evaluate available immunodiagnostics tests for COVID-19 and will update this scientific brief when necessary...

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has touched almost every continent. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is the final line of protection of healthcare workers (HCW). There is variation as well as controversy of infection control recommendation with regards to the use of PPE for HCW between institutions. The aim of this narrative review is to of examine and summarise the available evidence to guide recommendation for the safety of HCW. A literature search was conducted on the PubMed, MedLine, and Embase databases with the keywords “personal protective equipment”, “COVID 19”, “n95”, “health care worker”, and “mortality”. SARS‐nCoV‐2 is highly contagious. 3.5‐20% of HCW has been reported to be infected. The mortality ranges from 0.53‐1.94%. PPE is part of the measure within a package of prevention and control of pandemic, rather than a replacement of. Respirators are more effective than masks in preventing aerosol transmission to HCWs. Extended use may be considered if guidelines are adhered. PAPRs if available should be used in high risk procedures. Transmission of viruses is multimodal, and in the setting of a novel pathogen with high case fatality with no proven effective interventions, PPE that affords the best protection should be available to HCWs.