Disulfiram use is associated with lower risk of COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fillmore N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8553043 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Corticosteroid is commonly used to reduce damage from inflammatory reactions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aim to determine the outcomes of corticosteroid use in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Ninety six critically ill patients, hospitalized in 14 hospitals outside Wuhan from January 16 to March 30, 2020 were enrolled in this study. Among 96 critical patients, 68 were treated with corticosteroid (CS group), while 28 were not treated with corticosteroids (non-CS group). Multivariable logistic regression were performed to determine the possible correlation between corticosteroid use and the treatment outcomes. Forty-six (68%) patients in the CS group died compared to six (21%) of the non-CS group. Corticosteroid use was also associated with the development of ARDS, exacerbation of pulmonary fibrosis, longer hospital stay and virus clearance time. On admission, no difference in laboratory findings between the CS and the non-CS group was observed. After corticosteroid treatment, patients treated with corticosteroids were associated with higher counts of white blood cells, neutrophils, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, alanine aminotransferase level and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. In conclusion, corticosteroid use in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with a much higher case fatality rate. Frequent incidence of liver injury and multi-organ failure in corticosteroid treated patients may have contributed to the adverse outcomes. The multi-organ failure is likely caused by more persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection and higher viral load, due to the inhibition of immune surveillance by corticosteroid.
| S-EPMC7900536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRespiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, can cause pulmonary structural damage and physiologic impairment, which may increase the risk of subsequent lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). Prior hospitalization for any reason is a risk factor for LRTI, but data on the risk of subsequent new-onset LRTI following hospitalization for COVID-19 LRTI or non-COVID-19 LRTI are needed to inform strategies for immunizations targeting respiratory pathogens.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) among adults hospitalized from 3/1/2020 to 5/31/2022, excluding labor and delivery. We categorized individuals into 3 mutually exclusive baseline exposure groups: those hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI, those hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI, and those hospitalized for all other causes without LRTI or COVID-19 ("non-LRTI"). Following hospital discharge, patients were followed up for new-onset LRTI, beginning 30 antibiotic-free days after hospital discharge until 8/31/2022. We used multivariable cause-specific Cox regression with time-varying covariates to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of new-onset LRTI comparing those hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI or non-COVID-19 LRTI to those hospitalized for non-LRTI, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe study included 22,417 individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI, 12,795 individuals hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI, and 176,788 individuals hospitalized for non-LRTI. Individuals hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI were older and had more comorbidities than those hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI or non-LRTI. Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years (95% CI) of new-onset LRTI were 52.5 (51.4-53.6) among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI, 253.5 (243.7-263.6) among those hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI, and 52.5 (51.4-53.6) among those hospitalized for non-LRTI. The adjusted hazard of new-onset LRTI during follow-up was 20% higher among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 LRTI (HR 1.20 [95% CI: 1.12-1.28]) and 301% higher among individuals hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI (HR 3.01 [95% CI: 2.87-3.15]) compared to those hospitalized for non-LRTI.ConclusionThe risk of new-onset LRTI following hospital discharge was high, particularly among those hospitalized for non-COVID-19 LRTI, but also for COVID-19 LRTI. These data suggest that immunizations targeting respiratory pathogens, including COVID-19, should be considered for adults hospitalized for LRTI prior to hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC10552217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies indicate hypocalcaemia as a potential diagnostic and prognostic marker of corona-virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to investigate these relations in more detail in a large test cohort and an independent validation cohort.MethodsWe retrospectively included 2792 COVID-19 suspected patients that presented to the emergency department (ED) of two hospitals. Plasma calcium and ionized plasma calcium levels were compared between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and between severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients using univariate and multivariate analyses in the first hospital (N = 1363). Severe COVID-19 was defined as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death within 28 d after admission. The results were validated by repeating the same analyses in the second hospital (N = 1429).ResultsA total of 693 (24.8%) of the enrolled patients were COVID-19 positive, of whom 238 (34.3%) had severe COVID-19. In both hospitals, COVID-19 positive patients had lower plasma calcium levels than COVID-19 negative patients, regardless of correction for albumin, in univariate and multivariate analysis (Δ0.06-0.13 mmol/L, p < .001). Ionized plasma calcium concentrations, with and without correction for pH, were also lower in COVID-19 positive patients in multivariate analyses (Δ0.02-0.05 mmol/L, N = 567, p < .001). However, we did not find a significant association between COVID-19 disease severity and plasma calcium in multivariate analyses.ConclusionsPlasma calcium concentrations were lower in COVID-19 positive than COVID-19 negative patients but we found no association with disease severity in multivariate analyses. Further understanding of plasma calcium perturbation may facilitate the development of new preventive and therapeutic modalities for the current pandemic.
| S-EPMC8500306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to estimate the attack rates, and identify the risk factors of COVID-19 infection. Based on a retrospective cohort study, we investigated 11,580 contacts of COVID-19 cases in Guangdong Province from 10 January to 15 March 2020. All contacts were tested by RT-PCR to detect their infection of SARS-COV-2. Attack rates by characteristics were calculated. Logistic regression was used to estimate the risk factors of infection for COVID-19. A total of 515 of 11,580 contacts were identified to be infected with SARS-COV-2. Compared to young adults aged 20-29 years, the infected risk was higher in children (RR: 2.59, 95%CI: 1.79-3.76), and old people aged 60-69 years (RR: 5.29, 95%CI: 3.76-7.46). Females also had higher infected risk (RR: 1.66, 95%CI: 1.39-2.00). People having close relationship with index cases encountered higher infected risk (RR for spouse: 20.68, 95%CI: 14.28-29.95; RR for non-spouse family members: 9.55, 95%CI: 6.73-13.55; RR for close relatives: 5.90, 95%CI: 4.06-8.59). Moreover, contacts exposed to index case in symptomatic period (RR: 2.15, 95%CI: 1.67-2.79), with critically severe symptoms (RR: 1.61, 95%CI: 1.00-2.57), with symptoms of dizzy (RR: 1.58, 95%CI: 1.08-2.30), myalgia (RR: 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.94), and chill (RR: 1.42, 95%CI: 1.05-1.92) had higher infected risks. Children, old people, females, and family members are susceptible of COVID-19 infection, while index cases in the incubation period had lower contagiousness. Our findings will be helpful for developing targeted prevention and control strategies to combat the worldwide pandemic.
| S-EPMC7473290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClozapine, an antipsychotic with unique efficacy in treatment-resistant psychosis, is associated with increased susceptibility to infection, including pneumonia.AimsTo investigate associations between clozapine treatment and increased risk of COVID-19 infection in patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders who are receiving antipsychotic medications in a geographically defined population in London, UK.MethodUsing information from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) clinical records, via the Clinical Record Interactive Search system, we identified 6309 individuals who had an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and were taking antipsychotics at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic onset in the UK. People who were on clozapine treatment were compared with those on any other antipsychotic treatment for risk of contracting COVID-19 between 1 March and 18 May 2020. We tested associations between clozapine treatment and COVID-19 infection, adjusting for gender, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), smoking status and SLAM service use.ResultsOf 6309 participants, 102 tested positive for COVID-19. Individuals who were on clozapine had increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared with those who were on other antipsychotic medication (unadjusted hazard ratio HR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.73-3.96), which was attenuated after adjusting for potential confounders, including clinical contact (adjusted HR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.14-2.72).ConclusionsThese findings provide support for the hypothesis that clozapine treatment is associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Further research will be needed in other samples to confirm this association. Potential clinical implications are discussed.
| S-EPMC7417985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study investigated remdesivir's clinical use to provide direct evidence of effectiveness for a low-middle income Asian setting.DesignA one-to-one propensity score matching retrospective cohort study.SettingA tertiary hospital with COVID-19 treatment facilities in Vietnam.ParticipantsA total of 310 patients in standard of care (SoC) group were matched with 310 patients in SoC+remdesivir (SoC+R) group.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to critical progression, defined as all-cause mortality or critical illness. The secondary outcomes were length of oxygen therapy/ventilation and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcome reports were presented as HR, OR or effect difference with 95% CI.ResultsPatients receiving remdesivir had a lower risk for mortality or critical illness (HR=0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96, p=0.030). Remdesivir was not associated with a shorter length of oxygen therapy/ventilation (effect difference -0.17 days, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.96, p=0.774). The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was lower in SoC+R group (OR=0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, p=0.007).ConclusionsThis study's results showing remdesivir's benefits in non-critical patients with COVID-19 may be extrapolated to other similar low-middle income countries, allowing more regimens for limited resource areas and reducing poor outcomes and equity gap worldwide.
| S-EPMC10276957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Initial reports indicate a high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but more data are required to clarify if COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for AKI and how COVID-19-associated AKI may differ from AKI due to other causes. We therefore sought to study the relationship between COVID-19, AKI, and outcomes in a retrospective cohort of patients admitted to 2 acute hospitals in Derby, United Kingdom. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We extracted electronic data from 4,759 hospitalised patients who were tested for COVID-19 between 5 March 2020 and 12 May 2020. The data were linked to electronic patient records and laboratory information management systems. The primary outcome was AKI, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, need for ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and length of stay. As compared to the COVID-19-negative group (n = 3,374), COVID-19 patients (n = 1,161) were older (72.1 ± 16.1 versus 65.3 ± 20.4 years, p < 0.001), had a greater proportion of men (56.6% versus 44.9%, p < 0.001), greater proportion of Asian ethnicity (8.3% versus 4.0%, p < 0.001), and lower proportion of white ethnicity (75.5% versus 82.5%, p < 0.001). AKI developed in 304 (26.2%) COVID-19-positive patients (COVID-19 AKI) and 420 (12.4%) COVID-19-negative patients (AKI controls). COVID-19 patients aged 65 to 84 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 2.50), needing mechanical ventilation (OR 8.74, 95% CI 5.27 to 14.77), having congestive cardiac failure (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.50), chronic liver disease (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.00), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.97 to 4.01) had higher odds for developing AKI. Mortality was higher in COVID-19 AKI versus COVID-19 patients without AKI (60.5% versus 27.4%, p < 0.001), and AKI was an independent predictor of mortality (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.39 to 4.48). Compared with AKI controls, COVID-19 AKI was observed in a higher proportion of men (58.9% versus 51%, p = 0.04) and lower proportion with white ethnicity (74.7% versus 86.9%, p = 0.003); was more frequently associated with cerebrovascular disease (11.8% versus 6.0%, p = 0.006), chronic lung disease (28.0% versus 19.3%, p = 0.007), diabetes (24.7% versus 17.9%, p = 0.03), and CKD (34.2% versus 20.0%, p < 0.001); and was more likely to be hospital acquired (61.2% versus 46.4%, p < 0.001). Mortality was higher in the COVID-19 AKI as compared to the control AKI group (60.5% versus 27.6%, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, AKI patients aged 65 to 84 years, (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.35) and ?85 years of age (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.87 to 6.70), peak AKI stage 2 (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90), AKI stage 3 (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.57), and COVID-19 (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.62 to 5.51) had higher odds of death. Limitations of the study include retrospective design, lack of urinalysis data, and low ethnic diversity of the region. CONCLUSIONS:We observed a high incidence of AKI in patients with COVID-19 that was associated with a 3-fold higher odds of death than COVID-19 without AKI and a 4-fold higher odds of death than AKI due to other causes. These data indicate that patients with COVID-19 should be monitored for the development of AKI and measures taken to prevent this. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04407156.
| S-EPMC7598516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile cannabis is known to have immunomodulatory properties, the clinical consequences of its use on outcomes in COVID-19 have not been extensively evaluated. We aimed to assess whether cannabis users hospitalized for COVID-19 had improved outcomes compared to non-users.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 1831 patients admitted to two medical centers in Southern California with a diagnosis of COVID-19. We evaluated outcomes including NIH COVID-19 Severity Score, need for supplemental oxygen, ICU (intensive care unit) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization, and in-hospital death for cannabis users and non-users. Cannabis use was reported in the patient's social history. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body-mass index, sex, race, tobacco smoking history, and comorbidities known to be risk factors for COVID-19 mortality between cannabis users and non-users.ResultsOf 1831 patients admitted with COVID-19, 69 patients reported active cannabis use (4% of the cohort). Active users were younger (44 years vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), less often diabetic (23.2% vs 37.2%, p < 0.021), and more frequently active tobacco smokers (20.3% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001) compared to non-users. Notably, active users had lower levels of inflammatory markers upon admission than non-users-CRP (C-reactive protein) (3.7 mg/L vs 7.6 mg/L, p < 0.001), ferritin (282 μg/L vs 622 μg/L, p < 0.001), D-dimer (468 ng/mL vs 1140 ng/mL, p = 0.017), and procalcitonin (0.10 ng/mL vs 0.15 ng/mL, p = 0.001). Based on univariate analysis, cannabis users had significantly better outcomes compared to non-users as reflected in lower NIH scores (5.1 vs 6.0, p < 0.001), shorter hospitalization (4 days vs 6 days, p < 0.001), lower ICU admission rates (12% vs 31%, p < 0.001), and less need for mechanical ventilation (6% vs 17%, p = 0.027). Using propensity matching, differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between cannabis users and non-users, nevertheless ICU admission was 12 percentage points lower (p = 0.018) and intubation rates were 6 percentage points lower (p = 0.017) in cannabis users.ConclusionsThis retrospective cohort study suggests that active cannabis users hospitalized with COVID-19 had better clinical outcomes compared with non-users, including decreased need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation. However, our results need to be interpreted with caution given the limitations of a retrospective analysis. Prospective and observational studies will better elucidate the effects cannabis use in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9356466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the association between human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, our study aimed to test the hypothesis that HPV vaccination may also induce trained immunity, which would potentially reduce the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and improve clinical outcomes.BackgroundSeveral vaccines have been reported to trigger non-specific immune reactions that could offer protection from heterologous infections. A recent case report showed that verruca vulgaris regressed after COVID-19, suggesting a possible negative association between COVID-19 and HPV infection.MethodsWe enrolled 57,584 women with HPV vaccination and compared them with propensity score-matched controls who never received HPV vaccination in relation to the risk of COVID-19 incidence. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses stratified by age, race, comorbid asthma, and obesity were performed.ResultsThe risk of COVID-19 incidence was significantly lower in those who had recently received the HPV vaccine (within 1 year after HPV vaccination, aHR: 0.818, 95% CI 0.764-0.876; within 1-2 years after HPV vaccination, aHR: 0.890, 95% CI 0.824-0.961). Several limitations were recognized in this study, including residual confounding, problems of misclassification due to the use of electronic health record data, and that we were unable to keep track of the patients' HPV infection status and the HPV antibody levels in those who had received the vaccine.ConclusionsRecent HPV vaccination was associated with a lower risk of incident COVID-19 and hospitalization. Based on the promising protective effect of HPV vaccine shown in this study, these findings should be replicated in an independent dataset. Further studies are needed to provide a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the differences in risks among 2-, 4-, or 9-valent HPV vaccine recipients.
| S-EPMC10170435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVitamin K concentrations are inversely associated with the clinical severity of COVID-19. The objective of this cohort study was to determine whether the regular use of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prior to COVID-19 was associated with short-term mortality in frail older adults hospitalized for COVID-19.MethodsEighty-two patients consecutively hospitalized for COVID-19 in a geriatric acute care unit were included. The association of the regular use of VKA prior to COVID-19 with survival after 7 days of COVID-19 was examined using a propensity-score-weighted Cox proportional-hazards model accounting for age, sex, severe undernutrition, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, prior stroke and/or transient ischemic attack, CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, and eGFR.ResultsAmong 82 patients (mean ± SD age 88.8 ± 4.5 years; 48% women), 73 survived COVID-19 at day 7 while 9 died. There was no between-group difference at baseline, despite a trend for more frequent use of VKA in those who did not survive on day 7 (33.3% versus 8.2%, p = 0.056). While considering "using no VKA" as the reference (hazard ratio (HR) = 1), the HR for 7-day mortality in those regularly using VKA was 5.68 [95% CI: 1.17; 27.53]. Consistently, COVID-19 patients using VKA on a regular basis had shorter survival times than the others (p = 0.031).ConclusionsRegular use of VKA was associated with increased mortality at day 7 in hospitalized frail elderly patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7824717 | biostudies-literature