Comparison of comorbidities among severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian versus non-Asian populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Diabetes, COVID-19, and questions unsolved

Recent evidence suggests a role for Diabetes Mellitus in adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infection; yet the underlying mechanisms are not clear. Moreover, attention has turned to prophylactic vaccination to protect the population from COVID-19-related illness and mortality. We performed a comprehensive peer-reviewed literature search on an array of key terms concerning diabetes and COVID-19 seeking to address the following questions: 1. What role does diabetes play as an accelerator for adverse outcomes in COVID-19?; 2. What mechanisms underlie the differences in outcomes seen in people with diabetes?; 3. Are vaccines against COVID-19 efficacious in people with diabetes? The current literature demonstrates that diabetes is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infection, and post-COVID sequelae. Potential mechanisms include dysregulation of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2, Furin, CD147, and impaired immune cell responses. Hyperglycaemia is a key exacerbator of these mechanisms. Limited studies are available on COVID-19 vaccination in people with diabetes; however, the current literature suggests that vaccination is protective against adverse outcomes for this population. In summary, people with diabetes are a high-risk group that should be prioritised in vaccination efforts. Glycaemic optimisation is paramount to protecting this group from COVID-19-associated risk. Unsolved questions remain as to the molecular mechanisms underlying the adverse outcomes seen in people with diabetes; the functional impact of post-COVID symptoms on people with diabetes, their persistence, and management; how long-term vaccine efficacy is affected by diabetes, and the antibody levels that confer protection from adverse outcomes in COVID-19.

Evaluation of cardio-pulmonary functions of previously healthy adults with moderate-severe COVID-19 pneumonia after discharge

Aim: Persistent dyspnea is one of the most frequent post-COVID symptoms. We aimed to evaluate the cardiopulmonary functions of COVID-19 survivors with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia without comorbidity, during the first wave of pandemics. Material and Method: The study was conducted retrospectively in a single center. The electronic data of patients applied with dyspnea one month after hospital discharge, without any comorbidities, and who were evaluated with pulmonary function test (PFT) and echocardiography were included in the study. A total of adult 88 patients who suffered from COVID-19 pneumonia (46 moderate and 42 severe) were enrolled. Results of biochemical, hematological and radiological examinations, PFT parameters and echocardiography were recorded and compared between moderate and severe cases. Results: The mean age of 88 patients included in the study was 48±13 years. Sixty-seven (74.4%) of the patients were male. Pulmonary thromboembolism was not detected in both groups. PFT parameters performed were similar in the two groups and there was no statistically significant difference. Pulmonary function test of the patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia revealed mild restriction in 21.7% and moderate restriction in 2% of the patients. In the severe group, 38.1% of the patients had mild and 4.8% of the patients had a moderate restrictive pattern. Small airway obstruction was detected in 37% of the moderate group and in 38.1% of the severe group. Conventional echocardiographic parameters of the two groups were normal. Pulmonary arterial pressures were 22.6±8.3 vs 22.1±6.8; p=0.8 was found. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion were within normal limits. Conclusıon: The persistent dyspnea following COVID-19 pneumonia may be related to disturbances in PFT even in patients without comorbidities. We concluded that; the detailed evaluation of the patients with prolonged respiratory symptoms might help to detect the cardiopulmonary functional disturbances.

Cancers and COVID-19 Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study

Simple Summary

During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer patients are regarded as a highly vulnerable population. Given the unavoidable bias and unmeasured confounders in observational studies, the causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 outcomes are largely unknown. In the study, we tried to evaluate the causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 outcomes using the Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. No strong evidence was observed to support a causal role of cancer in COVID-19 development. Previous observational correlations between cancers and COVID-19 outcomes were likely confounded. Large and well-conducted epidemiological studies are required to determine whether cancers causally contribute to increased risk of COVID-19.

Abstract

Observational studies have shown increased COVID-19 risk among cancer patients, but the causality has not been proven yet. Mendelian randomization analysis can use the genetic variants, independently of confounders, to obtain causal estimates which are considerably less confounded. We aimed to investigate the causal associations of cancers with COVID-19 outcomes using the MR analysis. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was employed as the primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses were conducted. Notably, IVW analysis of univariable MR revealed that overall cancer and twelve site-specific cancers had no causal association with COVID-19 severity, hospitalization or susceptibility. The corresponding p-values for the casual associations were all statistically insignificant: overall cancer (p = 0.34; p = 0.42; p = 0.69), lung cancer (p = 0.60; p = 0.37; p = 0.96), breast cancer (p = 0.43; p = 0.74; p = 0.43), endometrial cancer (p = 0.79; p = 0.24; p = 0.83), prostate cancer (p = 0.54; p = 0.17; p = 0.58), thyroid cancer (p = 0.70; p = 0.80; p = 0.28), ovarian cancer (p = 0.62; p = 0.96; p = 0.93), melanoma (p = 0.79; p = 0.45; p = 0.82), small bowel cancer (p = 0.09; p = 0.08; p = 0.19), colorectal cancer (p = 0.85; p = 0.79; p = 0.30), oropharyngeal cancer (p = 0.31; not applicable, NA; p = 0.80), lymphoma (p = 0.51; NA; p = 0.37) and cervical cancer (p = 0.25; p = 0.32; p = 0.68). Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses yielded similar results. In conclusion, cancers might have no causal effect on increasing COVID-19 risk. Further large-scale population studies are needed to validate our findings.

Diabetes Does Not Increase the Risk of Hospitalization Due to COVID-19 in Patients Aged 50 Years or Older in Primary Care—APHOSDIAB—COVID-19 Multicenter Study

The purpose of this study was to identify clinical, analytical, and sociodemographic variables associated with the need for hospital admission in people over 50 years infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to assess whether diabetes mellitus conditions the risk of hospitalization. A multicenter case-control study analyzing electronic medical records in patients with COVID-19 from 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2021 was conducted. We included 790 patients: 295 cases admitted to the hospital and 495 controls. Under half (n = 386, 48.8%) were women, and 8.5% were active smokers. The main comorbidities were hypertension (50.5%), dyslipidemia, obesity, and diabetes (37.5%). Multivariable logistic regression showed that hospital admission was associated with age above 65 years (OR from 2.45 to 3.89, ascending with age group); male sex (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.47–3.15), fever (OR 4.31, 95% CI 2.87–6.47), cough (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28–2.80), asthenia/malaise (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.38–3.03), dyspnea (4.69, 95% CI 3.00–7.33), confusion (OR 8.87, 95% CI 1.68–46.78), and a history of hypertension (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08–2.41) or immunosuppression (OR 4.97, 95% CI 1.45–17.09). Diabetes was not associated with increased risk of hospital admission (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80–1.72; p = 0.38). Diabetes did not increase the risk of hospital admission in people over 50 years old, but advanced age, male sex, fever, cough, asthenia, dyspnea/confusion, and hypertension or immunosuppression did.