Prognostic serum biomarkers in cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review
Translational oncology. 2022;21:101443
PURPOSE Cancer patients with COVID-19 likely express biomarker changes in circulation. However, the biomarkers used in SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients for COVID-19 severity and prognosis are largely unclear. Therefore, this systematic review aims to determine what biomarkers were measured in cancer patients with COVID-19 and their prognostic utility. METHODS A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was performed on June 16th, 2021. The search keywords coronavirus, neoplasm, biomarkers, and disease progression were used to filter out 17 eligible studies, which were then carefully evaluated. RESULTS A total of 4,168 patients, 16 types of cancer, and 60 biomarkers were included. Seven up-regulated markers, including CRP, d-dimer, ferritin, IL-2R, IL-6, LDH, and PCT, were identified in eligible studies. Albumin and hemoglobin were significantly down-regulated in cancer patients with COVID-19. Moreover, we observed that the SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients with lower CRP, ferritin, and LDH levels successfully survived from COVID-19 treatments. CONCLUSION Several important clinical biomarkers, such as CRP, ferritin, and LDH, may serve as the prognostic markers to predict the outcomes following COVID-19 treatment and monitor the deterioration of COVID-19 in cancer patients.
Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Status in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis
JAMA network open. 2022;5(1):e2147331
IMPORTANCE COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. OBJECTIVE To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. DATA SOURCES From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. RESULTS Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.
Comparative efficacy of 19 drug therapies for patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a multiple-treatments network meta-analysis
Annals of hematology. 2022
Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is controversy on how to choose the appropriate treatment. We systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (including 2615 participants) from January 1, 2015, to April 20, 2021. These investigations compared multiple drugs or their combinations in the therapeutic dose range for the treatment of ITP. The primary endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. The efficacy of eltrombopag plus rituximab, avatrombopag, dexamethasone plus anti-HP, and dexamethasone plus rhTPO was significantly higher than placebo (OR: 46.66, 29.44, 2.66, 1.86) or dexamethasone alone (OR: 46.22, 29.01, 2.22, 1.40). Placebo, oral immunosuppressants, and dexamethasone plus oseltamivir were less effective than the other ITP therapies tested. Eltrombopag plus rituximab may be the best choice when starting treatment for ITP.
Efficacy of different anticoagulant doses for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
PURPOSE As no reported randomized control trials (RCTs) directly compare the three administration doses of anticoagulants (prophylactic dose, treatment dose, and no treatment), the most recommended dose to be administered to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of anticoagulant doses administered to patients with COVID-19, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) including high-quality studies. METHODS All eligible trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov were included. We included RCTs and observational studies adjusted for covariates for patients aged ≥ 18 years and hospitalized due to objectively confirmed COVID-19. The main study outcome was mortality. RESULTS In patients with moderate COVID-19, the prophylactic (relative risk (RR) 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.80]) and treatment dose (RR 0.57 [95% CI 0.45-0.72] were associated with a lower risk of short-term mortality than that with no anticoagulant treatment. However, the prophylactic and treatment dose groups were not significantly different. The hierarchy for efficacy in reducing short-term mortality was treatment dose (P score 92.4) > prophylactic dose (57.6) > no treatment (0.0). In patients with severe COVID-19, due to the absence of trials with the no-treatment group, NMA could not be conducted. However, pairwise comparison did not show a significant difference between the prophylactic and treatment dose groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment and prophylactic doses of anticoagulants showed similar effects on mortality; however, the treatment dose is preferred over the prophylactic dose for patients with both moderate and severe COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRATION DATES PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021245308, 05/21/2021).
Convalescent Plasma Treatment in Patients with Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Frontiers in immunology. 2022;13:817829
Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17(th), 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).
Vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity - plausibly linked by latitude, ethnicity, impacts on cytokines, ACE2 and thrombosis
Journal of Internal Medicine. 2022;289(1):97-115
Background: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection ranges from asymptomatic through to fatal COVID-19 characterized by a 'cytokine storm' and lung failure Vitamin D deficiency has been postulated as a determinant of severity Objectives: To review the evidence relevant to vitamin D and COVID-19
The impact of anti-tumor approaches on the outcomes of cancer patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis based on 52 cohorts incorporating 9231 participants
BMC cancer. 2022;22(1):241
BACKGROUND This study was designed to investigate the impact of anti-tumor approaches (including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, endocrine therapy, immunotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy) on the outcomes of cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant trials. The primary endpoints were severe disease and death of cancer patients treated with anti-tumor therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. In addition, stratified analyses were implemented towards various types of anti-tumor therapy and other prognostic factors. Furthermore, odds ratios (ORs) were hereby adopted to measure the outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS As indicated in the study consisting of 9231 individuals from 52 cohorts in total, anti-tumor therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis could elevate the risk of death in cancer patients (OR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.07-1.36, P = 0.0026) and the incidence of severe COVID-19 (OR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.01-1.40, P = 0.0412). Among various anti-tumor approaches, chemotherapy distinguished to increase the incidence of death (OR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.08-1.38, P = 0.0013) and severe COVID-19 (OR = 1.10, 95%CI: 1.02-1.18, P = 0.0165) as to cancer patients with COVID-19. Moreover, for cancer patients with COVID-19, surgery and targeted therapy could add to the risk of death (OR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.00-1.61, P = 0.0472), and the incidence of severe COVID-19 (OR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.0357) respectively. In the subgroup analysis, the incidence of death (OR = 1.17, 95%CI: 1.03-1.34, P = 0.0158) raised in case of chemotherapy adopted for solid tumor with COVID-19. Besides, age, gender, hypertension, COPD, smoking and lung cancer all served as potential prognostic factors for both death and severe disease of cancer patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS Anti-tumor therapy, especially chemotherapy, augmented the risk of severe disease and death for cancer patients with COVID-19, so did surgery for the risk of death and targeted therapy for the incidence of severe COVID-19.
Comorbidities and mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal of clinical laboratory analysis. 2022;:e24387
INTRODUCTION The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It seems that there is an association between blood cancer and an increased risk of severe COVID-19. This study aimed to review the literature reporting the COVID-19 outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, blood cancer, myeloma, lymphoma, and leukemia. All the published articles in English from January 1, 2019, until March 10, 2021 were collected and evaluated. RESULTS In total, 53 studies with 2395 patients were included based on inclusion criteria. Most of these studies took place in Spain (14.81%), followed by the USA (11.11%), China (9.26%), and the UK (9.26%). More than half of COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancy were male (56.73%). Oxygen therapy played an important role in COVID-19 treatment. Moreover, anticoagulant therapies such as enoxaparin and heparin were two great assists for these patients. Fever (74.24%), cough (67.64%), and fatigue (53.19%) were the most reported clinical manifestations. In addition, hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most common comorbidities. The mortality rate due to COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies was 21.34%. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that hematologic cancer patients were more susceptible to a severe COVID-19 than patients without blood cancer. Thus, the management of COVID-19 in these patients requires much more attention, and their screening should perform regularly.
COVID-19 induced ischemic stroke and mechanisms of viral entry in brain and clot formation: a systematic review and current update
The International journal of neuroscience. 2022;:1-14
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2 (SCV-2) was stated as a pandemic on March 11 2020 by World Health Organization (WHO), and since then, it has become a major health issue worldwide. It mainly attacks the respiratory system with various accompanying complications, including cardiac injury, renal failure, encephalitis and Stroke.Materials and Methods: The current systematic review has been compiled to summarize the available literature on SCV-2 induced ischemic Stroke and its subtypes. Further, the mechanisms by which the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to enter the brain have also been explored. The role of CRP and D-dimer as potent prognostic markers was also explored. The literature search was carried out comprehensively on Google scholar, PubMed, SCOP US, Embase and Cochrane databases by following guidelines.Results: All the studies were reviewed thoroughly by authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus and help of the senior authors. The most common subtype of the IS was found to be large artery atherosclerosis in SCV-2 induced IS. Hypertension emerged as the most significant risk factor. The mechanism resulting in elevated levels of CRP and D-dimer have also been discussed. However, there is a scarcity of definitive evidence on how SCV-2 enters the human brain. The available literature based on various studies demonstrated that SCV-2 enters through the nasopharyngeal tract via olfactory cells to olfactory neurons, astrocytes and via choroid plexus through endothelial cells. Further, disruption of gut-brain axis has been also discussed.Conclusion: Data available in the literature is not adequate to come to a conclusion. Therefore, there is a need to carry out further studies to delineate the possible association between SCV-2 induced IS.
Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022;3:Cd013739
BACKGROUND The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia. Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.
Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (7 studies, n= 16,185).
Active comparator. Placebo. No intervention.
Higher-dose anticoagulants resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03) and increased minor bleeding (RR 3.28) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduced pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46) and slightly increased major bleeding (RR 1.78) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence).