Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 in New York City

Risk factors for mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from three hospitals in Peru: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Peru was one of the countries with the highest COVID-19 mortality worldwide during the first stage of the pandemic. It is then relevant to evaluate the risk factors for mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in three hospitals in Peru in 2020, from March to May, 2020.  Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study. The population consisted of patients from three Peruvian hospitals hospitalized for a diagnosis of COVID-19 during the March-May 2020 period. Independent sociodemographic variables, medical history, symptoms, vital functions, laboratory parameters and medical treatment were evaluated. In-hospital mortality was assessed as the outcome. We performed Cox regression models (crude and adjusted) to evaluate risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.  Results: We analyzed 493 hospitalized adults; 72.8% (n=359) were male and the mean age was 63.3 ± 14.4 years. COVID-19 symptoms appeared on average 7.9 ± 4.0 days before admission to the hospital, and the mean oxygen saturation on admission was 82.6 ± 13.8. While 67.6% (n=333) required intensive care unit admission, only 3.3% (n=16) were admitted to this unit, and 60.2% (n=297) of the sample died. In the adjusted regression analysis, it was found that being 60 years old or older (HR=1.57; 95% CI: 1.14-2.15), having two or more comorbidities (HR=1.53; 95% CI: 1.10-2.14), oxygen saturation between 85-80% (HR=2.52; 95% CI: 1.58-4.02), less than 80% (HR=4.59; 95% CI: 3.01-7.00), and being in the middle (HR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.15-2.39) and higher tertile (HR=2.18; 95% CI: 1.51-3.15) of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, increased the risk of mortality.  Conclusions: The risk factors found agree with what has been described in the literature and allow the identification of vulnerable groups in whom monitoring and early identification of symptoms should be prioritized in order to reduce mortality.

Evaluation of the Current Therapeutic Approaches for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis

Background: Limited data on the efficacy and safety of currently applied COVID-19 therapeutics and their impact on COVID-19 outcomes have raised additional concern. Objective and Methods: To estimate the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 therapeutics, we performed meta-analyses of the studies reporting clinical features and treatments of COVID-19 published from January 21 to September 6, 2020. Results: We included 136 studies that involved 102,345 COVID-19 patients. The most prevalent treatments were antibiotics (proportion: 0.59, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.67]) and antivirals (proportion: 0.52, 95% CI: [0.44, 0.60]). The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and Arbidol was the most effective in treating COVID-19 (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.68, 95% CI: [0.15, 1.21]). The use of corticosteroids was associated with a small clinical improvement (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI: [-0.85, -0.23]), but with a higher risk of disease progression and death (mortality: RR = 9.26, 95% CI: [4.81, 17.80]; hospitalization length: RR = 1.54, 95% CI: [1.39, 1.72]; severe adverse events: RR = 2.65, 95% CI: [2.09, 3.37]). The use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with a higher risk of death (RR = 1.68, 95% CI: [1.18, 2.38]). The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon-β (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: [0.22, 0.54]); hydroxychloroquine (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.39, 0.58]); and lopinavir/ritonavir (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.56, 0.91]) was associated with reduced hospitalization length. Hydrocortisone (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: [0.03, 0.10]) and remdesivir (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: [0.62, 0.90]) were associated with lower incidence of severe adverse events. Dexamethasone was not significant in reducing disease progression (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.16, 1.25]) and mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: [0.70, 1.16]). The estimated combination of corticosteroids with antivirals was associated with a better clinical improvement than antivirals alone (SMD = -1.09, 95% CI: [-1.64, -0.53]). Conclusion: Antivirals are safe and effective in COVID-19 treatment. Remdesivir cannot significantly reduce COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization length, while it is associated with a lower incidence of severe adverse events. Corticosteroids could increase COVID-19 severity, but it could be beneficial when combined with antivirals. Our data are potentially valuable for the clinical treatment and management of COVID-19 patients.

Meta-analysis of cardiac markers for predictive factors on severity and mortality of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Previous observational studies have suggested that increased cardiac markers are commonly found in COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the relationship between several cardiac markers and the severity/mortality of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Several cardiac markers were analysed in this meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to provide pooled estimates for standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis. Significantly higher CK-MB (0.64, 95% CI = 0.19-1.09), PCT (0.47, 95% CI = 0.26-0.68), NT-proBNP (1.90, 95% CI = 1.63-2.17), BNP (1.86, 95% CI = 1.63-2.09), and d-dimer (1.30, 95% CI = 0.91-1.69) were found in severe compared with non-severe COVID-19. Significantly higher CK-MB (3.84, 95% CI = 0.62-7.05), PCT (1.49, 95% CI = 0.86-2.13), NT-proBNP (4.66, 95% CI = 2.42-6.91), BNP (1.96, 95% CI = 0.78-3.14), troponin (1.64 (95% CI = 0.83-2.45), and d-dimer (2.72, 95% CI = 2.14-3.29) were found in those who died from compared with survivors of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

High CK-MB, PCT, NT-proBNP, BNP, and d-dimer could be predictive markers for severity of COVID-19, while high CK-MB, PCT, NT-proBNP, BNP, troponin, and d-dimer could be predictive markers for survival of COVID-19 patients.

Phase 2 randomized study on chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin in hospitalized patients with severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objective: Given the urgent need for strategies to minimize the damage caused by this pandemic, this study performed a randomized, double-blind phase 2 study to assess the safety of the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin in severe forms of COVID-19, in addition to identifying predictors of mortality in this group of patients.Methods: Phase 2, double-blind, randomized study to assess the safety and efficacy of enteral CQ, HCQ or ivermectin in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to a Reference Hospital in Roraima (Brazil) in may 2020. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio. The endpoints were need of supplemental O₂, invasive ventilation, admission in ICU and death. The study was approved by an independent IRB.Results: 168 patients were randomized. The mean age was 53.4 years (±15.6), most participants were male (n = 95; 58.2%). Therapy with corticosteroid, anticoagulant or antibiotics was a decision of the attending physicians, and there was no difference between the groups. The mortality was similar in three groups (22.2%; 21.3% and 23.0%) suggesting ineffectiveness of the drugs. No difference in the incidence of serious adverse events were observed. To be older than 60 years of age, obesity, diabetes, extensive pulmonary involvement and low SaO₂ at hospital admission due to independent risk factors for mortality.Conclusion: Although CQ, HCQ or ivermectin revealed a favorable safety profile, the tested drugs do not reduce the need for supplemental oxygen, ICU admission, invasive ventilation or death, in patients hospitalized with a severe form of COVID-19.

Development and validation of an LC-MS/MS method for determination of hydroxychloroquine, its two metabolites, and azithromycin in EDTA-treated human plasma

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZM) are antimalarial drugs recently reported to be active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus- 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is causing the global COVID-19 pandemic. In an emergency response to the pandemic, we aimed to develop a quantitation method for HCQ, its metabolites desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ) and bisdesethylchloroquine (BDCQ), and AZM in human plasma.

METHODS

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was used to develop the method. Samples (20 μL) are extracted by solid-phase extraction and injected onto the LC-MS/MS system equipped with a PFP column (2.0 × 50 mm, 3 μm). ESI+ and MRM are used for detection. Ion pairs m/z 336.1→247.1 for HCQ, 308.1→179.1 for DHCQ, 264.1→179.1 for BDCQ, and 749.6→591.6 for AZM are selected for quantification. The ion pairs m/z 342.1→253.1, 314.1→181.1, 270.1→181.1, and 754.6→596.6 are selected for the corresponding deuterated internal standards (IS) HCQ-d4, DHCQ-d4, BDCQ-d4, and AZM-d5. The less abundant IS ions from 37Cl were used to overcome the interference from the analytes.

RESULTS

Under optimized conditions, retention times are 0.78 min for BDCQ, 0.79 min for DHCQ, 0.92 min for HCQ and 1.87 min for AZM. Total run time is 3.5 min per sample. The calibration ranges are 2-1000 ng/mL for HCQ and AZM, 1-500 ng/mL for DHCQ and 0.5-250 ng/mL for BDCQ; samples above the range are validated for up to 10-fold dilution. Recoveries of the method ranged from 88.9-94.4% for HCQ, 88.6-92.9% for DHCQ, 88.7-90.9% for BDCQ, and 98.6%-102% for AZM. The IS normalized matrix effect were within (100±10) % for all 4 analytes. Blood samples are stable for at least 6 hr at room temperature. Plasma samples are stable for at least 66 hr at room temperature, 38 days at -70°C, and 4 freeze-thaw cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

An LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantitation of HCQ, DHCQ, BDCQ, and AZM in human plasma was developed and validated for clinical studies requiring fast turnaround time and small samples volume.

Mechanisms of COVID-19-induced heart failure: a short review

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 42.5 million people globally resulting in the death of over 1.15 million subjects. It has inflicted severe public health and economic hardships across the world. In addition to acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, sepsis, and acute kidney injury, COVID-19 also causes heart failure (HF). COVID-19-induced HF is manifested via different mechanisms, including, but not limited to, (1) virus-induced infiltration of inflammatory cells, which could impair the function of the heart; (2) pro-inflammatory cytokines (monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, interleukin-1β; interleukin-6; tumor necrosis factor-α) that could cause necrosis and death of the myocardium; (3) endothelial injury coupled with micro-thrombosis which could damage the endocardium; and (4) acute respiratory distress syndrome and respiratory failure that could lead to heart failure due to severe hypoxia. It is concluded that the etiology of COVID-19-induced HF is multifactorial and mitigation of the development of HF in patients with COVID-19 will require different approaches such as social distancing, drug therapy, and the urgent development of a vaccine to eradicate the disease.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

The efficiency and safety of high-dose vitamin C in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The inflammatory reaction is the main cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019, especially those with severe and critical illness. Several studies suggested that high-dose vitamin C reduced inflammatory reaction associated with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of high-dose vitamin C in Coronavirus disease 2019.

METHODS

We included 76 patients with Coronavirus disease 2019, classified into the high-dose vitamin C group (loading dose of 6g intravenous infusion per 12 hr on the first day, and 6g once for the following 4 days, n=46) and the standard therapy group (standard therapy alone, n=30).

RESULTS

The risk of 28-day mortality was reduced for the high-dose vitamin C versus the standard therapy group (HR=0.14, 95% CI, 0.03-0.72). Oxygen support status was improved more with high-dose vitamin C than standard therapy (63.9% vs 36.1%). No safety events were associated with high-dose vitamin C therapy.

CONCLUSION

High-dose vitamin C may reduce the mortality and improve oxygen support status in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 without adverse events.

Controversial Roles of the Renin Angiotensin System and Its Modulators During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Since December 2019, the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread and overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide, urging physicians to understand how to manage this novel infection. Early in the pandemic, more severe forms of COVID-19 have been observed in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, who are often treated with renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS)-blockers, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but whether these are indeed independent risk factors is unknown. The cellular receptor for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the membrane-bound angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), as for SARS-CoV(-1). Experimental data suggest that expression of ACE2 may be increased by RAAS-blockers, raising concerns that these drugs may facilitate viral cell entry. On the other hand, ACE2 is a key counter-regulator of the RAAS, by degrading angiotensin II into angiotensin (1-7), and may thereby mediate beneficial effects in COVID-19. These considerations have raised concerns about the management of these drugs, and early comments shed vivid controversy among physicians. This review will describe the homeostatic balance between ACE-angiotensin II and ACE2-angiotensin (1-7) and summarize the pathophysiological rationale underlying the debated role of the RAAS and its modulators in the context of the pandemic. In addition, we will review available evidence investigating the impact of RAAS blockers on the course and prognosis of COVID-19 and discuss why retrospective observational studies should be interpreted with caution. These considerations highlight the importance of solid evidence-based data in order to guide physicians in the management of RAAS-interfering drugs in the general population as well as in patients with more or less severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

An Evaluation of Serum 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Levels in Patients with COVID-19 in New York City

AIM

Deterioration of patients from COVID-19 is associated with cytokine release syndrome attributed to an elevation in pro-inflammatory cytokines. Vitamin D reduces proinflammatory cytokines, and has the possibility of reducing complications from respiratory tract illnesses.

METHOD

This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of patients with COVID-19 disease within a New York City Health System. Adult patients were included if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and had a serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level (25(OH)D) within the three previous months prior to their detected SARS-CoV-2 test. Patients were compared and evaluated based upon their 25(OH)D levels. The primary endpoints were hospitalization, need for oxygen support, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

437 COVID-19 patients were included [67 (IQR: 56-79) years] within this cohort. Deficient plasma 25(OH)D levels (<20 ng/ml) were associated with an increased likelihood of oxygen support [OR:2.23 (95% CI: 1.46-3.44, p = 0.0002)] from COVID-19. Deficient plasma 25(OH)D levels were not independently associated with 90-day mortality or risk of hospitalization. Hospitalization rates (98%), oxygen support (93%), and mortality rates (49%) were highest in patients who had 25(OH)D levels less than 10 ng/ml when compared to other 25(OH)D levels.

CONCLUSION

Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels may affect the need for oxygen support therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Early changes in laboratory parameters are predictors of mortality and ICU admission in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite the growing knowledge of the clinicopathological features of COVID-19, the correlation between early changes in the laboratory parameters and the clinical outcomes of patients is not entirely understood. In this study, we aimed to assess the prognostic value of early laboratory parameters in COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the available literature in five databases. The last search was on July 26, 2020, with key terms related to COVID-19. Eligible studies contained original data of at least ten infected patients and reported on baseline laboratory parameters of patients. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. 93 and 78 studies were included in quantitative and qualitative syntheses, respectively. Higher baseline total white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate-dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), D-dimer and lower absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (WMDALC = - 0.35 × 109/L [CI - 0.43, - 0.27], p < 0.001, I2 = 94.2%; < 0.8 × 109/L, ORALC = 3.74 [CI 1.77, 7.92], p = 0.001, I2 = 65.5%) were all associated with higher mortality rate. On admission WBC, ALC, D-dimer, CRP, LDH, and CK changes could serve as alarming prognostic factors. The correct interpretation of laboratory abnormalities can guide therapeutic decisions, especially in early identification of potentially critical cases. This meta-analysis should help to allocate resources and save lives by enabling timely intervention.

Cytokine Storm in Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Adult-Onset Still's Disease: Similarities and Differences

The catastrophic outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently a public emergency. Adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) is an autoinflammatory disease characterized by life-threatening complications. Systemic hyperinflammation and cytokine storm play a critical role in the pathogenesis of both COVID-19 and AOSD. We aimed to compare the similarities and differences focusing on ferritin and cytokine levels between severe COVID-19 and active AOSD. A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science to collect the levels of cytokine including IL-1β, IL-6, IL-18, TNF-α, IL-10, and ferritin in severe COVID-19 patients. After extracting available data of indicators of interest, we acquired these statistics with a single-arm meta-analysis. Furthermore, a comparison was conducted between 52 patients with active AOSD in our center and severe COVID-19 patients from databases. The levels of IL-6 and IL-10 were higher in severe COVID-19 compared with those in active AOSD. There were no significant differences on the cytokine of IL-1β and TNF-α. Fold changes of IL-18 were defined as the mean expression level ratio of severe COVID-19 to healthy controls in the COVID-19 study and active AOSD to healthy controls in our study, individually. Although the fold change of IL-18 in patients with AOSD was significantly higher than patients with severe COVID-19 (fold change: 594.00 vs 2.17), there was no statistical comparability. In addition, the level of ferritin was higher in active AOSD in comparison with severe COVID-19. Our findings suggest that severe COVID-19 and active AOSD have differences in cytokine panel and ferritin level, indicating the pathogenic role of ferritin in overwhelming inflammation. And it paves the way to make efficacy therapeutic strategy targeting the hyperinflammatory process in COVID-19 according to AOSD management, especially in severe COVID-19.

Lysosomotropic agents including azithromycin, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine activate the integrated stress response

The integrated stress response manifests with the phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) on serine residue 51 and plays a major role in the adaptation of cells to endoplasmic reticulum stress in the initiation of autophagy and in the ignition of immune responses. Here, we report that lysosomotropic agents, including azithromycin, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine, can trigger eIF2α phosphorylation in vitro (in cultured human cells) and, as validated for hydroxychloroquine, in vivo (in mice). Cells bearing a non-phosphorylatable eIF2α mutant (S51A) failed to accumulate autophagic puncta in response to azithromycin, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine. Conversely, two inhibitors of eIF2α dephosphorylation, nelfinavir and salubrinal, enhanced the induction of such autophagic puncta. Altogether, these results point to the unexpected capacity of azithromycin, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine to elicit the integrated stress response.

Effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin on the mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without azithromycin have been widely promoted to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) following early in vitro antiviral effects against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin decreased COVID-19 mortality compared with the standard of care.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and MedRxiv were searched up to 25 July 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished studies comparing the mortality rate between patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and patients managed with standard of care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients ≥18 years old with confirmed COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin.

METHODS

Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. Multiple subgroup analyses were conducted to assess drug safety.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 839 articles, of which 29 met our inclusion criteria. All studies except one were conducted on hospitalized patients and evaluated the effects of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin. Among the 29 articles, three were randomized controlled trials, one was a non-randomized trial and 25 were observational studies, including 11 with a critical risk of bias and 14 with a serious or moderate risk of bias. After excluding studies with critical risk of bias, the meta-analysis included 11 932 participants for the hydroxychloroquine group, 8081 for the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin group and 12 930 for the control group. Hydroxychloroquine was not significantly associated with mortality: pooled relative risk (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06, n = 17 studies) for all studies and RR = 1.09 (95% CI 0.97-1.24, n = 3 studies) for randomized controlled trials. Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was associated with an increased mortality (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.04-1.54, n = 7 studies). We found similar results with a Bayesian meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.

Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96-1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00-1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.

Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection

Approximately 9 months of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavius-2 (SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19]) spreading across the globe has led to widespread COVID-19 acute hospitalizations and death. The rapidity and highly communicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has hampered the design and execution of definitive randomized, controlled trials of therapy outside of the clinic or hospital. In the absence of clinical trial results, physicians must use what has been learned about the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in determining early outpatient treatment of the illness with the aim of preventing hospitalization or death. This article outlines key pathophysiological principles that relate to the patient with early infection treated at home. Therapeutic approaches based on these principles include 1) reduction of reinoculation, 2) combination antiviral therapy, 3) immunomodulation, 4) antiplatelet/antithrombotic therapy, and 5) administration of oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine. Future randomized trials testing the principles and agents discussed will undoubtedly refine and clarify their individual roles; however, we emphasize the immediate need for management guidance in the setting of widespread hospital resource consumption, morbidity, and mortality.

Randomised controlled trials for COVID-19: evaluation of optimal randomisation methodologies-need for data validation of the completed trials and to improve ongoing and future randomised trial designs

During the emerging COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, initially there were no proven treatment options. With the release of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results, we are beginning to see possible treatment options for COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial showed an absolute risk reduction in mortality by 2.8% with dexamethasone, and the ACTT-1 trial showed that treatment with remdesivir reduced the time to recovery by 4 days. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir did not show any mortality benefit in either the RECOVERY or World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Brazilian HCQ trials did not show any benefit for HCQ based on the seven-point ordinal scale outcomes. The randomisation methodologies utilised in these controlled trials and the quality of published data were reviewed to examine their adaptability to treat patients. We found that the randomisation methodologies of these trials were suboptimal for matching the studied groups based on disease severity among critically-ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients with high mortality rates. The published literature is very limited regarding the disease severity metrics among the compared groups and failed to show that the data are without fatal sampling errors and sampling biases. We also found that there is a definite need for the validation of data in these trials along with additional important disease severity metrics to ensure that the trials' conclusions are accurate. We also propose proper randomisation methodologies for the design of RCTs for COVID-19 as well as guidance for the publication of COVID-19 trial results.

The potential association between common comorbidities and severity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019: A pooled analysis

BACKGROUD

The association between underlying comorbidities and cardiac injury and the prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients was assessed in this study.

HYPOTHESIS

The underlying comorbidities and cardiac injury may be associated with the prognosis in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, and The Cochrane library from December 2019 to July 2020. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to estimate the probability of comorbidities and cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients with or without severe type, or in survivors vs nonsurvivors of COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 124 studies were included in this analysis. A higher risk for severity was observed in COVID-19 patients with comorbidities. The pooled result in patients with hypertension (OR 2.57, 95% CI: 2.12-3.11), diabetes (OR 2.54, 95% CI: 1.89-3.41), cardiovascular diseases (OR 3.86, 95% CI: 2.70-5.52), chronic obstractive pulmonary disease (OR 2.71, 95% CI: 1.98-3.70), chronic kidney disease (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.27-3.80), and cancer (OR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.81-3.22) respectively. All the comorbidities presented a higher risk of mortality. Moreover, the prevalence of acute cardiac injury is higher in severe group than in nonsevere group, and acute cardiac injury is associated with an increased risk for in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities and acute cardiac injury are closely associated with poor prognosis in COVID-19 patients. It is necessary to continuously monitor related clinical indicators of organs injury and concern comorbidities in COVID-19 patients.

The Relationship Between Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Health-Related Parameters and the Impact of COVID-19 on 24 Regions in India: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has varied widely across nations and even in different regions of the same nation. Some of this variability may be due to the interplay of pre-existing demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related factors in a given population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the statistical associations between the statewise prevalence, mortality rate, and case fatality rate of COVID-19 in 24 regions in India (23 states and Delhi), as well as key demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related indices.

METHODS

Data on disease prevalence, crude mortality, and case fatality were obtained from statistics provided by the Government of India for 24 regions, as of June 30, 2020. The relationship between these parameters and the demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related indices of the regions under study was examined using both bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

COVID-19 prevalence was negatively associated with male-to-female sex ratio (defined as the number of females per 1000 male population) and positively associated with the presence of an international airport in a particular state. The crude mortality rate for COVID-19 was negatively associated with sex ratio and the statewise burden of diarrheal disease, and positively associated with the statewise burden of ischemic heart disease. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the COVID-19 crude mortality rate was significantly and negatively associated with sex ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the transmission and impact of COVID-19 in a given population may be influenced by a number of variables, with demographic factors showing the most consistent association.

Sex Disparities in COVID-19 Severity and Outcome: Are Men Weaker or Women Stronger?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a global public health issue which has profound effects on most aspects of societal well-being, including physical and mental health. A plethora of studies globally have suggested the existence of a sex disparity in the severity and outcome of COVID-19 patients, mainly due to mechanisms of virus infection, immune response to the virus, development of systemic inflammation, and consequent systemic complications, particularly thromboembolism. Epidemiological data report a sex difference in the severity of COVID-19, with a more favorable course of the disease in women compared to men regardless of age, although the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to be similar in both sexes. Sex hormones, including androgens and estrogens, may not only impact virus entry and load, but also shape the clinical manifestations, complications, and ultimately the outcome of the disease. The current review comprehensively summarizes the current literature on sex disparities in susceptibility and outcome of COVID-19 as well as the literature underpinning the pathophysiological and molecular mechanisms, which may provide a rationale to a sex disparity. These mechanisms include sex hormone influence on factors that facilitate virus entry and priming, immune and inflammatory response, as well as coagulation and thrombosis diathesis. Based on present evidence, women appear to be relatively protected from COVID-19 because of a more effective immune response and a less pronounced systemic inflammation, with consequent moderate clinical manifestations of the disease, together with a lesser predisposition to thromboembolism. Conversely, men appear to be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because of a less effective immune response with consequent severe clinical manifestations of the disease, together with a greater predisposition to thromboembolism. In the elderly, generally characterized by the phenomenon of inflammaging, sex disparities in overall mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection are even more palpable as elderly men appear to be more prone to severe COVID-19 because of a greater predisposition to infections, a weaker immune defense, and an enhanced thrombotic state compared to women. The information revealed from the review highlights potential novel therapeutic approaches employing the administration of hormonal or antihormonal therapy in combination with antiviral drugs in COVID-19 patients.

Health Literacy and Preventive Behaviors Modify the Association between Pre-Existing Health Conditions and Suspected COVID-19 Symptoms: A Multi-Institutional Survey

People with pre-existing health conditions (PEHC) are vulnerable to viral infection while health literacy (HL) and preventive behaviors (PB) have been shown to benefit people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to examine the association between PEHC and suspected COVID-19 symptoms (S-COVID-19-S), and to investigate the modification effect of HL and PB. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 8291 participants visiting outpatient departments at 18 hospitals and health centers across Vietnam from 14 February to 31 May 2020. Data were collected regarding participant's characteristics, HL, PB, PEHC, and S-COVID-19-S. Regression models were used for analyzing the associations. Results showed that people with PEHC had a 3.38 times higher likelihood of having S-COVID-19-S (odds ratio, OR, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 3.01, 3.79; p < 0.001). In comparison to participants without PEHC and with the lowest HL score, those with PEHC and one HL score increment had a 7% lower likelihood of having S-COVID-19-S (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92, 0.94; p < 0.001). In comparison to participants without PEHC and not adhering to mask wearing, those with PEHC and adhering to mask wearing had a 77% lower likelihood of having S-COVID-19-S (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.32; p < 0.001). Higher HL and adherence to mask wearing can protect people from having S-COVID-19-S, especially in those with PEHC.

Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Mortality Among COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The main aim of this study was to find the prevalence of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 infected patients and associated risk factors for death.

METHODS

Three electronic databases including PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar were searched to identify relevant cohort studies of COVID-19 disease from January 1, 2020, to August 11, 2020. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence rate (PR), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for both effect measures. Cochrane chi-square test statistic Q, [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] tests were used to measure the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias and sensitivity of the included studies were also tested.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 58 studies with 122,191 patients were analyzed. The pooled prevalence rate of mortality among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 18.88%, 95% CI (16.46-21.30), p < 0.001. Highest mortality was found in Europe [PR 26.85%, 95% CI (19.41-34.29), p < 0.001] followed by North America [PR 21.47%, 95% CI (16.27-26.68), p < 0.001] and Asia [PR 14.83%, 95% CI (12.46- 17.21), p < 0.001]. An significant association were found between mortality among COVID-19 infected patients and older age (> 65 years vs. < 65 years) [RR 3.59, 95% CI (1.87-6.90), p < 0.001], gender (male vs. female) [RR 1.63, 95% CI (1.43-1.87), p < 0.001], ICU admitted patients [RR 3.72, 95% CI (2.70-5.13), p < 0.001], obesity [RR 2.18, 95% CI (1.10-4.34), p < 0.05], hypertension [RR 2.08,95% CI (1.79-2.43) p < 0.001], diabetes [RR 1.87, 95% CI (1.23-2.84), p < 0.001], cardiovascular disease [RR 2.51, 95% CI (1.20-5.26), p < 0.05], and cancer [RR 2.31, 95% CI (1.80-2.97), p < 0.001]. In addition, significant association for high risk of mortality were also found for cerebrovascular disease, COPD, coronary heart disease, chronic renal disease, chronic liver disease, chronic lung disease and chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients was highest in the European region and older age, gender, ICU patients, patients with comorbidity had a high risk for case fatality. Those findings would help the health care providers to reduce the mortality rate and combat this pandemic to save lives using limited resources.

Predictors of in-hospital COVID-19 mortality: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis exploring differences by age, sex and health conditions

OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for in-hospital mortality in confirmed COVID-19 patients have been summarized in numerous meta-analyses, but it is still unclear whether they vary according to the age, sex and health conditions of the studied populations. This study explored these variables as potential mortality predictors.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases of studies available through July 27, 2020. The pooled risk was estimated with the odds ratio (p-OR) or effect size (p-ES) obtained through random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were applied to explore differences by age, sex and health conditions. The MOOSE guidelines were strictly followed.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 60 studies, with a total of 51,225 patients (12,458 [24.3%] deaths) from hospitals in 13 countries. A higher in-hospital mortality risk was found for dyspnoea (p-OR = 2.5), smoking (p-OR = 1.6) and several comorbidities (p-OR range: 1.8 to 4.7) and laboratory parameters (p-ES range: 0.3 to -2.6). Age was the main source of heterogeneity, followed by sex and health condition. The following predictors were more markedly associated with mortality in studies with patients with a mean age ≤60 years: dyspnoea (p-OR = 4.3), smoking (p-OR = 2.8), kidney disease (p-OR = 3.8), hypertension (p-OR = 3.7), malignancy (p-OR = 3.7), diabetes (p-OR = 3.2), pulmonary disease (p-OR = 3.1), decreased platelet count (p-ES = -1.7), decreased haemoglobin concentration (p-ES = -0.6), increased creatinine (p-ES = 2.4), increased interleukin-6 (p-ES = 2.4) and increased cardiac troponin I (p-ES = 0.7). On the other hand, in addition to comorbidities, the most important mortality predictors in studies with older patients were albumin (p-ES = -3.1), total bilirubin (p-ES = 0.7), AST (p-ES = 1.8), ALT (p-ES = 0.4), urea nitrogen (p-ES), C-reactive protein (p-ES = 2.7), LDH (p-ES = 2.4) and ferritin (p-ES = 1.7). Obesity was associated with increased mortality only in studies with fewer chronic or critical patients (p-OR = 1.8).

CONCLUSION

The prognostic effect of clinical conditions on COVID-19 mortality vary substantially according to the mean age of patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020176595.

The association of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients

This study investigates the association between the treatment with hydroxychloroquine and mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19. Routinely recorded, clinical data, up to the 24th of April 2020, from the 2075 patients with COVID-19, admitted in 17 hospitals in Spain between the 1st of March and the 20th of April 2020 were used. The following variables were extracted for this study: age, gender, temperature, and saturation of oxygen on admission, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, heparin, steroids, tocilizumab, a combination of lopinavir with ritonavir, and oseltamivir, together with data on mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations. At the time of collecting the data, 301 patients had died, 1449 had been discharged home from the hospitals, 240 were still admitted, and 85 had been transferred to hospitals not included in the study. Median follow-up time was 8 (IQR 5-12) days. Hydroxychloroquine had been used in 1857 patients. Hydroxychloroquine was associated with lower mortality when the model was adjusted for age and gender, with OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.29-0.67). This association remained significant when saturation of oxygen < 90% and temperature > 37 °C were added to de model with OR 0.45 (0.30-0.68) p < 0.001, and also when all the other drugs, and time of admission, were included as covariates. The association between hydroxychloroquine and lower mortality observed in this study can be acknowledged by clinicians in hospitals and in the community. Randomized-controlled trials to assess the causal effects of hydroxychloroquine in different therapeutic regimes are required.

Circulating Levels of Interleukin-6 and Interleukin-10, But Not Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha, as Potential Biomarkers of Severity and Mortality for COVID-19: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cytokine storm, an uncontrolled overproduction of inflammatory cytokines contributing to an aberrant systemic inflammatory response, is a major pathological feature of acute respiratory distress syndromes being severe manifestations of COVID-19, thus highlighting its potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target for COVID-19. We aimed to determine associations of circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines with severity and mortality of COVID-19 by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search in electronic databases consisting of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library and in a hand searching of reference lists from inception to July 31, 2020, was performed using the following search terms: COVID-19, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Mean difference (MD) from individual studies was pooled using a random-effects model. Quality assessment, publication bias, meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 6212 COVID-19 patients from 24 eligible studies were included. Compared with non-severe COVID-19 patients, systemic levels of IL-6 and IL-10, but not TNF-α, were significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 patients (MD = 18.63, 95% CI: 10.91, 26.35, P < 0.00001; MD = 2.61, 95% CI: 2.00, 2.32, P < 0.00001; respectively). For COVID-19 mortality, circulating levels of IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α were found to be significantly increased in non-survivors when compared with survivors (MD = 57.82, 95% CI: 10.04, 105.59, P = 0.02; MD = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.89, 6.00, P < 0.00001; MD = 5.60, 95% CI: 4.03, 7.17, P < 0.00001; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Circulating levels of IL-6 and IL-10 might have great potential as biomarkers for the disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

High serum IL-6 values increase the risk of mortality and the severity of pneumonia in patients diagnosed with COVID-19

The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is very heterogeneous, ranging from asymptomatic to severe, which could lead to the need for mechanical ventilation or even death.We analyzed the serum levels of IL-6 in patients with COVID-19 diagnosis and its relationship with the severity of the disease, the need for mechanical ventilation and with patient mortality. We assessed IL-6 in a cohort of 50 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia with different degrees of disease severity, and compared it with clinical and laboratory findings. We found higher levels of IL-6 in patients with more severe pneumonia according to CURB-65 scale (p = 0.001), with ICU mechanical ventilation requirements (p = 0.02), and who subsequently died (p = 0.003). Of the clinical and analytical parameters analyzed in the current study, the serum levels of IL-6 was the most effective predictor of disease severity. From the data obtained in ROC curve analysis, we defined a cut-off point for serum IL-6 levels of 35 pg/mL above which both the risk of mortality (OR = 20.00, 95 % CI 4.214-94-912, p = 0.0001) and ICU admission (OR = 12.750, 95 % CI 2,159-75,3,3, p = 0.005) were increased. Starting from blood IL-6 levels 27 out of 50 patients, with high levels and more severe symptoms, were treated with the IL-6 receptor antagonist Tocilizumab. IL-6 serum levels appear to be a useful prognostic biomarker in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. A cut-off point of 35 pg/mL could clearly differentiate patients a with more severe disease.

Risk Factors Associated with Mortality Among Patients with Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Africa

BACKGROUND

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in China and later spread rapidly to other parts of the world, including Africa. Africa was projected to be devastated by COVID-19. There is currently limited data regarding regional predictors of mortality among patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the independent risk factors associated with mortality among patients with COVID-19 in Africa.

METHODS

A total of 1028 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from Africa with definite survival outcomes were identified retrospectively from an open-access individual-level worldwide COVID-19 database. The live version of the dataset is available at https://github.com/beoutbreakprepared/nCoV2019 . Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine the risk factors that independently predict mortality among patients with COVID-19 in Africa.

RESULTS

Of the 1028 cases included in study, 432 (42.0%) were females with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 50 (24) years. Older age (adjusted odds ratio {aOR} 1.06; [95% confidence intervals {95% CI}, 1.04-1.08]), presence of chronic disease (aOR 9.63; [95% CI, 3.84-24.15]), travel history (aOR 2.44; [95% CI, 1.26-4.72]), as well as locations of Central Africa (aOR 0.14; [95% CI, 0.03-0.72]) and West Africa (aOR 0.12; [95% CI, 0.04-0.32]) were identified as the independent risk factors significantly associated with increased mortality among the patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving gradually in Africa. Among patients with COVID-19 in Africa, older age, presence of chronic disease, travel history, and the locations of Central Africa and West Africa were associated with increased mortality. A regional response should prioritize strategies that will protect these populations. Also, conducting a further in-depth study could provide more insights into additional factors predictive of mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been largely used and investigated as therapy for COVID-19 across various settings at a total dose usually ranging from 2400 mg to 9600 mg. In Belgium, off-label use of low-dose HCQ (total 2400 mg over 5 days) was recommended for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in the Belgian national COVID-19 hospital surveillance data. Patients treated either with HCQ monotherapy and supportive care (HCQ group) were compared with patients treated with supportive care only (no-HCQ group) using a competing risks proportional hazards regression with discharge alive as competing risk, adjusted for demographic and clinical features with robust standard errors. Of 8075 patients with complete discharge data on 24 May 2020 and diagnosed before 1 May 2020, 4542 received HCQ in monotherapy and 3533 were in the no-HCQ group. Death was reported in 804/4542 (17.7%) and 957/3533 (27.1%), respectively. In the multivariable analysis, mortality was lower in the HCQ group compared with the no-HCQ group [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.684, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.617-0.758]. Compared with the no-HCQ group, mortality in the HCQ group was reduced both in patients diagnosed ≤5 days (n = 3975) and >5 days (n = 3487) after symptom onset [aHR = 0.701 (95% CI 0.617-0.796) and aHR = 0.647 (95% CI 0.525-0.797), respectively]. Compared with supportive care only, low-dose HCQ monotherapy was independently associated with lower mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 diagnosed and treated early or later after symptom onset.

Susceptibility of tree shrew to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became a pandemic event in the world, it has not only caused huge economic losses, but also a serious threat to global public health. Many scientific questions about SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were raised and urgently need to be answered, including the susceptibility of animals to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we tested whether tree shrew, an emerging experimental animal domesticated from wild animal, is susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. No clinical signs were observed in SARS-CoV-2 inoculated tree shrews during this experiment except the increasing body temperature particularly in female animals. Low levels of virus shedding and replication in tissues occurred in all three age groups. Notably, young tree shrews (6 months to 12 months) showed virus shedding at the earlier stage of infection than adult (2 years to 4 years) and old (5 years to 7 years) animals that had longer duration of virus shedding comparatively. Histopathological examine revealed that pulmonary abnormalities were the main changes but mild although slight lesions were also observed in other tissues. In summary, tree shrew is less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the reported animal models and may not be a suitable animal for COVID-19 related researches. However, tree shrew may be a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2 as an asymptomatic carrier.

Delayed severe cytokine storm and immune cell infiltration in SARS-CoV-2-infected aged Chinese rhesus macaques

As of June 2020, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed an estimated 440 000 people worldwide, 74% of whom were aged ≥65 years, making age the most significant risk factor for death caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. To examine the effect of age on death, we established a SARS-CoV-2 infection model in Chinese rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta) of varied ages. Results indicated that infected young macaques manifested impaired respiratory function, active viral replication, severe lung damage, and infiltration of CD11b + and CD8 + cells in lungs at one-week post infection (wpi), but also recovered rapidly at 2 wpi. In contrast, aged macaques demonstrated delayed immune responses with a more severe cytokine storm, increased infiltration of CD11b + cells, and persistent infiltration of CD8 + cells in the lungs at 2 wpi. In addition, peripheral blood T cells from aged macaques showed greater inflammation and chemotaxis, but weaker antiviral functions than that in cells from young macaques. Thus, the delayed but more severe cytokine storm and higher immune cell infiltration may explain the poorer prognosis of older aged patients suffering SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Perceptions, Knowledge, and Behaviors Related to COVID-19 Among Social Media Users: Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Social media is one of the most rapid and impactful ways of obtaining and delivering information in the modern era.

Objective

The aim of this study was to rapidly obtain information on public perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19 in order to identify deficiencies in key areas of public education.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, a survey web link was posted on the social media and messaging platforms Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp by the study investigators. Participants, aged ≥18 years, filled out the survey on a voluntary basis. The main outcomes measured were knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms, protective measures against COVID-19, and source(s) of information about COVID-19. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the effects of age, gender, underlying illness, and working or studying in the health care industry on the perceived likelihood of acquiring COVID-19 and getting vaccinated.

Results

A total of 5677 subjects completed the survey over the course of 1 week. “Fever or chills” (n=4973, 87.6%) and “shortness of breath” (n=4695, 82.7%) were identified as the main symptoms of COVID-19. Washing and sanitizing hands (n=4990, 87.9%) and avoiding public places and crowds (n=4865, 85.7%) were identified as the protective measures most frequently used against COVID-19. Social media was the most utilized source for information on the disease (n=4740, 83.5%), followed by the World Health Organization (n=2844, 50.1%). Subgroup analysis revealed that younger subjects (<35 years), males, and those working or studying in health care reported a higher perceived likelihood of acquiring COVID-19, whereas older subjects, females, and those working or studying in non–health care areas reported a lower perceived likelihood of acquiring COVID-19. Similar trends were observed for vaccination against COVID-19, with older subjects, females, and those working or studying in non–health care sectors reporting a lower likelihood of vaccinating against COVID-19.

Conclusions

Our results are indicative of a relatively well-informed cohort implementing appropriate protective measures. However, key knowledge deficiencies exist with regards to vaccination against COVID-19, which future efforts should aim at correcting.