Citations

Background: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are known to increase the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, which has been shown to be the receptor for the acute severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Areas of Uncertainty: Based on these observations, speculations raised the concerns that ACEIs/ARBs users would be more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and would be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease and death. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis of the association between prior use of ACEIs and ARBs and mortality due to COVID-19 disease. Data Sources: A comprehensive search of several databases from November 2019 to June 18, 2020 was conducted. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus. Medrxiv.org was also searched for unpublished data. Therapeutic Advances: Nine studies with a total of 18,833 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 met our eligibility criteria. Prior use of ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with reduced mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with a pooled adjusted relative risk (aRR) from 6 studies of 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42–0.94) (I 2 = 65%). Three studies reported separately on ACEIs or ARBs and their association with survival among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with a pooled adjusted relative risk of 0.78, 95% CI (0.58–1.04) (I 2 = 0%) and 0.97, 95% CI (0.73–1.30) (I 2 = 0%) respectively. The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analysis. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that use of ACEIs/ARBs is associated with a decreased risk of death among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. This finding provides a reassurance to the public not to stop prescribed ACEIs/ARBs because of fear of severe COVID-19.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Importance:SARS-CoV-2 virus gains access and infects target cells via angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Because angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could increase the expression of ACE2, there are growing concerns that their use could increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cardiac societies have called for epidemiological research about this emerging controversy. Objective:We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis about prior use of ACEI/ARBs and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Data source:We searched multiple data sources including PubMed , ClinicalTrial.org , and medrxiv.org from November 2019 through May 16, 2020. Study selection:Any study that reported on the adjusted association of prior use of ACEIs / ARBs and risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection was eligible. Two authors independently reviewed eligible studies and extracted data into a prespecified data collection form. Data synthesis:An inverse variance meta-analytic approach was used to pool adjusted odds ratios using a random effect model meta-analysis. I2 test was used to assess in-between studies heterogeneity. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Main outcome and Measures:The association between the prior use of ACEIs or ARBs and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed using pooled OR and 95% confidence interval. Results:Six case control studies that enrolled a total of 5657 patients (2536 patients in ACEIs arm and 3121 patients in ARBs arm ) and 721,859 controls were included in our meta-analysis. Two of the included studies were from the USA, one from Italy, one from China, one from Spain, and one from South Korea. All included studies scored high based on NOS scale. Prior use of ACEIs was not significantly associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, OR 0.93, CI (0.85,1.02), I2=20%. Similarly, prior use of ARBs was not significantly associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, OR 0.86, CI (0.67,1.10), I2=93%. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing a study that could have been affected by residual confounding; OR for ARB 1.04, CI (0.96,1.12), I2=32%.Conclusion:Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that prior use of ACEIs or ARBs is not associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. Our results are in support of the recent recommendations of cardiac societies and provide a reassurance to the public not to discontinue prescribed ACEIs/ARBs due to fear of COVID-19.

Purpose Open fractures are considered orthopedic emergencies that are traditionally treated with surgical debridement within 6 h of injury to prevent infection. However, this proclaimed “6-h rule” is arbitrary and not based on rigorous scientific evidence. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature that compares late (>6 h from the time of injury) to early (<6 h from the time of injury) surgical debridement of pediatric open fractures. Methods We searched several databases from 1946 to 2013 for any observational or experimental studies that evaluated late and early surgical debridement of pediatric open fractures. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool odds ratios for a comparison of infection rates between children undergoing late versus early surgical debridement. We also investigated the infection rates in upper- and lower-limb pediatric open fractures. Descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative data were extracted. Results Of the 12 articles identified, three studies (retrospective cohort studies) were eligible for the meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 714 open fractures. The pooled odds ratio (OR = 0.79) for infection between late and early surgical debridement was in favor of late surgical debridement but was not statistically significant (95 % CI 0.32, 1.99; p = 0.38, I 2 = 0 %). No significant difference in infection rate was detected between pediatric open fractures in the upper and lower limbs according to the time threshold in the included studies (OR = 0.72, 95 % CI 0.29, 1.82; p = 0.40, I 2 = 0 %). Conclusions The cumulative evidence does not, at present, indicate an association between late surgical debridement and higher infection rates in pediatric open fractures. However, initial expedient surgical debridement of open fractures in children should always remain the rule. Thus, multi-center randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies will be able to answer this question with more certainty and a higher level of evidence. Level of evidence Level III.

Androgens which are relatively cheap were used in the treatment of anaemia in dialysis patients before the advent of Erythropoietin (EPO). However, there are concerns about their efficacy and side effects.Aims. To examine the efficacy and harms of androgens for the treatment of anaemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) compared to EPO.Settings and Design. A systematic review and meta-analysis using an a priori protocol.Methods and Materials. We searched several databases for randomized controlled trials using the key terms anaemia, chronic kidney disease, and androgens, without language restrictions. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles.Statistical Analysis Used. Data was analyzed using Review manger 5 software. We summarized treatment effects as relative risks and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals using a random-effect model. We tested for heterogeneity with Chi2and theI2statistics.Results. We identified four eligible trials involving 114 participants, majority (83.33%) of whom were males, mostly over 50 years of age. The pooled difference in mean haemoglobin between the nandrolone and EPO arms at the end of the trials was −0.11 (CI −0.80 to 0.58) which is not statistically significant.Conclusions. This meta-analysis revealed no difference between nandrolone and EPO for the treatment of anaemia of CKD in men over 50 years. Therefore, nandrolone can be used for the treatment of anaemia of CKD in this category of patients, in resource-limited countries. However, further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety of nandrolone in men over 50 years old, as well as its effectiveness and safety in females in general, and males less than 50 years of age.

Background— The American Heart Association published updated guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) prevention in 2007 that markedly restricted the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain at-risk patients undergoing dental and other invasive procedures. The incidence of IE caused by viridans group streptococci (VGS) in the United States after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines has not been reported. Methods and Results— We performed a population-based review of all definite or possible cases of VGS-IE using the Rochester Epidemiology Project of Olmsted County, Minnesota. Patient demographics and microbiological data were collected for all VGS-IE cases diagnosed from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2010. We also examined the Nationwide Inpatient Sample hospital discharge database to determine the number of VGS-IE cases included between 1999 and 2009. We identified 22 cases with VGS-IE in Olmsted County over the 12-year study period. Rates of incidence (per 100 000 person-years) during time intervals of 1999–2002, 2003–2006, and 2007–2010 were 3.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.20–5.17), 2.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.85–4.10), and 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.00–1.64), respectively ( P =0.061 from Poisson regression). The number of hospital discharges with a VGS-IE diagnosis in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database during 1999–2002, 2003–2006, and 2007–2009 ranged between 15 318 to 15 938, 16 214 to 17 433, and 14 728 to 15 479, respectively. Conclusions— On the basis of data complete through 2010, there has been no perceivable increase in the incidence of VGS-IE in Olmsted County, Minnesota, since the publication of the 2007 American Heart Association endocarditis prevention guidelines.

ABSTRACT The role of combination antibiotic therapy with a beta-lactam and a fluoroquinolone for bacteremia caused by gram-negative bacilli, to our knowledge, has not been previously described. Much of the previous study of combination therapy has included beta-lactams and aminoglycosides. We conducted a large retrospective cohort study to evaluate 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with monomicrobial bacteremia due to aerobic gram-negative bacilli who received either a combination of beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam monotherapy. We enrolled adult patients admitted to Mayo Clinic hospitals from 1 January 2001 to 31 October 2006 in the study. After stratification of patients by Pitt bacteremia scores, we used Cox regression models to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for 28-day all-cause mortality after adjusting for the propensity to receive combination therapy. We identified 398 and 304 unique patients with bacteremia caused by gram-negative bacilli who received single and combination antibiotic therapy, respectively. In less severely ill patients with Pitt bacteremia scores of <4, combination therapy was associated with lower 28-day mortality than single therapy (4.2% [9 of 214] versus 8.8% [28 of 319]; adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.98; P = 0.044). In critically ill patients with Pitt bacteremia scores of ≥4, there was no difference in 28-day mortality between combination and single therapy (25.6% [23 of 90] versus 27.8% [22 of 79]; adjusted HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.62; P = 0.660). These findings were consistent for 14-day all-cause mortality. In this large cohort, we found for the first time that combination therapy with beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones was associated with a reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality among less severely ill patients with bacteremia caused by gram-negative bacilli.