Tleyjeh, Imad M.

Sotrovimab, an anti‐severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibody is being utilized to prevent progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Therefore, to understand its benefits, we have conducted a retrospective analysis of all non‐hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID‐19 who received a single infusion of sotrovimab and/or oral favipiravir at any Dubai COVID‐19 related healthcare center between July 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. The main outcome was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization for patients with COVID‐19 or all‐cause death within 28 days of treatment initiation. In this analysis, which included 10,882 patients (1,135 in the sotrovimab group, 2,653 in the sotrovimab/favipiravir group, and 7,094 in the favipiravir group), sotrovimab or sotrovimab/favipiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization (13 patients (1.5%) in the sotrovimab group and 71 patients (2.9%) in the sotrovimab/favipiravir group vs. 251 patients (4%) in the favipiravir group; hazard ratio (HR) for sotrovimab: 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09–0.28, P < 0.001; and for sotrovimab/favipiravir, HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32–0.56, P < 0.001), or death by day 28 from the start of treatment (no death in the sotrovimab group and 2 deaths in the the sotrovimab/favipiravir group vs. 10 deaths in the favipiravir group; odds ratio: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.81, P = 026). Safety was assessed in all the 3,788 patients in the sotrovimab and sotrovimab/favipiravir groups, and the reported adverse events were by 34 patients (<1%). In conclusion, sotrovimab was found to reduce the risk of progression of COVID‐19 when administrated early to non‐hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID‐19. No safety concern was detected.

Aim To provide a contemporary analysis of incidence trends of infective endocarditis (IE) with its changing epidemiology over the past two decades in Europe. Methods A systematic review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2020. All studies were independently reviewed by four referees and those that included a population-based incidence of IE in patients, irrespective of age, in Europe were included. Least squares regression was used to estimate pooled temporal trends in IE incidence. Results Of 9138 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Elderly men predominated in all studies. IE incidence increased 4.1% per year (95% CI 1.8% to 6.4%) in the pooled regression analysis of eight studies that included comprehensive and consistent trends data. When trends data were weighted according to population size of individual countries, an increase in yearly incidence of 0.27 cases per 100 000 people was observed. Staphylococci and streptococci were the most common pathogens identified. The rate of surgical intervention ranged from 10.2% to 60.0%, and the rate of inpatient mortality ranged from 14.3% to 17.5%. In six studies that examined the rate of injection drug use, five of them reported a rate of less than 10%. Conclusion Based on findings from our systematic review, IE incidence in Europe has doubled over the past two decades in Europe. Multiple factors are likely responsible for this striking increase. Trial registeration number CRD42020191196.

Abstract Background The objective of this paper was to examine temporal changes of infective endocarditis (IE) incidence and epidemiology in North America. Methods A systematic review was conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2020. Four referees independently reviewed all studies, and those that reported a population-based incidence of IE in patients aged 18 years and older in North America were included. Results Of 8588 articles screened, 14 were included. Overall, IE incidence remained largely unchanged throughout the study period, except for 2 studies that demonstrated a rise in incidence after 2014. Five studies reported temporal trends of injection drug use (IDU) prevalence among IE patients with a notable increase in prevalence observed. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen in 7 of 9 studies that included microbiologic findings. In-patient mortality ranged from 3.7% to 14.4%, while the percentage of patients who underwent surgery ranged from 6.4% to 16.0%. Conclusions The overall incidence of IE has remained stable among the 14 population-based investigations in North America identified in our systematic review. Standardization of study design for future population-based investigations has been highlighted for use in subsequent systematic reviews of IE.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Sarcoidosis is a multi-systemic inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS) has been reported in as much as 25% of patients with systemic involvement. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has a high diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in the diagnosis of CS. Purpose The aim of this review is to summarize evidence on the prognostic role of FDG PET. Methods Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE from inception to October 2020. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for sarcoidosis; cardiac and FDG PET imaging were used. Studies of any design assessing the prognostic role of FDG PET in patients with either suspected or confirmed cardiac sarcoidosis imaging done at baseline were included. Abnormal PET was defined as abnormal metabolism (presence of focal or focal-on-diffuse uptake of FDG) OR abnormal metabolism and a perfusion defect. Studies reporting any outcome measure were included. Pooled risk ratio for the composite outcome of MACE was done. Results A total of 6 studies were selected for final inclusion (515 patients, 53.4% women, 19.8% racial minorities.) Studies were institution based, retrospective in design and enrolled consecutive patients. All were observational in nature and published in English. All studies used a qualitative assessment of PET scans (abnormal FDG uptake with or without abnormal perfusion). Two studies assessed quantitative metrics (summed stress score in segments with abnormal FDG uptake, standardized uptake value and cardiac metabolic activity.) All studies reported Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) as a composite outcome. After a mean follow up ranging from 1.4 to 4.1 years, there were a total of 105 MACE. All studies included death (either all-cause death or sudden cardiac death) and ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation) as a component of MACE. Four of the six studies adjusted for several characteristics in their analysis. All four studies used Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF). However, other adjustment variables were not consistent across studies. Five studies found a positive prognostic association with the primary outcome, two of which assessing right ventricular uptake. Conclusion Although available evidence indicates FDG PET can be used in the risk stratification of patients with CS, our findings show further studies are needed to quantify the effect in this patient group.

Abstract The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection across the globe triggered an unprecedented increase in research activities that resulted in an astronomical publication output of observational studies. However, most studies failed to apply fully the necessary methodological techniques that systematically deal with different biases and confounding, which not only limits their scientific merit but may result in harm through misleading information. In this article, we address a few important biases that can seriously threaten the validity of observational studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on treatment selection bias due to patients’ preference on goals of care, medical futility and disability bias, survivor bias, competing risks, and the misuse of propensity score analysis. We attempt to raise awareness and to help readers assess shortcomings of observational studies of interventions in COVID-19.

Abstract Background Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. Results Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56–.77], I2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57–.94], I2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AbstractMany meta‐analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID‐19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.03, I2 = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86–1.42, I2 = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89–1.04, I2 = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID‐19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID‐19 infection in patients with high‐risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

Abstract Background A population-based study of infective endocarditis (IE) in Olmsted County, Minnesota, provides a unique opportunity to define temporal and seasonal variations in IE incidence over an extended time period. Methods This was a population-based review of all adults (≥18 years) residing in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with definite or possible IE using the Rochester Epidemiology Project from January 1, 1970, through December 31, 2018. Poisson regression was used to characterize the trends in IE incidence; models were fitted with age, sex, calendar time, and season, allowing for nonlinearity and nonadditivity of their effects. Results Overall, 269 cases of IE were identified over a 49-year study period. The median age of IE cases was 67.2 years, and 33.8% were female. The overall age- and sex-adjusted incidence of IE was 7.9 cases per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 7.0–8.9), with corresponding rates of 2.4, 2.4, 0.9, and 0.7 per 100 000 person-years for Staphylococcus aureus, viridans group streptococci (VGS), Enterococcus species, and coagulase-negative staphylococci IE, respectively. Temporal trends varied by age, sex, and season, but on average IE incidence increased over time (P = .021). Enterococcal IE increased the most (P = .018), while S. aureus IE appeared to increase but mostly in the winter months (P = .018). Between 1996 and 2018, the incidence of VGS IE was relatively stable, with no statistically significant difference in the trends before and after the 2007 AHA IE prevention guidelines. Conclusions Overall, IE incidence, and specifically enterococcal IE, increased over time, while S. aureus IE was seasonally dependent. There was no statistically significant difference in VGS IE incidence in the periods before and after publication of the 2007 AHA IE prevention guidelines.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infects its target cells via angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, a membrane-bound protein found on the surface of many human cells. Treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptors blockers (ARB) has been shown to increase angiotensin converting enzyme 2 expression by up to 5-fold. Areas of uncertainty: These findings coupled with observations of the high prevalence and mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with underlying cardiovascular disease have led to a speculation that ACEIs/ARBs may predispose to higher risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis of the association between prior use of ACEIs and ARBs and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. Data sources: We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and Medrxiv.org preprint server until June 18, 2020. Therapeutic advances: Ten studies (6 cohorts and 4 case control) that enrolled a total of 23,892 patients and 853,369 controls were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. One study was excluded from the analysis because of high risk of bias. Prior use of ACEIs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease, odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.91–1.05), I2 = 15%. Similarly, prior use of ARBs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2, odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval (0.98–1.10), I2 = 0%. Conclusion: Cumulative evidence suggests that prior use of ACEIs or ARBs is not associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. Our results provide a reassurance to the public not to discontinue prescribed ACEIs/ARBs because of fear of COVID-19.