Complement C5a and clinical markers as predictors of COVID-19 disease severity and mortality in a multi-ethnic population

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 causes a wide range of illness from asymptomatic to life-threatening. There is an essential need to identify biomarkers to predict disease severity and mortality during the earlier stages of the disease, aiding treatment and allocation of resources to improve survival. The aim of this study was to identify at the time of SARS-COV-2 infection patients at high risk of developing severe disease associated with low survival using blood parameters, including inflammation and coagulation mediators, vital signs, and pre-existing comorbidities. This cohort included 89 multi-ethnic COVID-19 patients recruited between July 14th and October 20th 2020 in Doha, Qatar. According to clinical severity, patients were grouped into severe (n=33), mild (n=33) and asymptomatic (n=23). Common routine tests such as complete blood count (CBC), glucose, electrolytes, liver and kidney function parameters and markers of inflammation, thrombosis and endothelial dysfunction including complement component split product C5a, Interleukin-6, ferritin and C-reactive protein were measured at the time COVID-19 infection was confirmed. Correlation tests suggest that C5a is a predictive marker of disease severity and mortality, in addition to 40 biological and physiological parameters that were found statistically significant between survivors and non-survivors. Survival analysis showed that high C5a levels, hypoalbuminemia, lymphopenia, elevated procalcitonin, neutrophilic leukocytosis, acute anemia along with increased acute kidney and hepatocellular injury markers were associated with a higher risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Altogether, we created a prognostic classification model, the CAL model (C5a, Albumin, and Lymphocyte count) to predict severity with significant accuracy. Stratification of patients using the CAL model could help in the identification of patients likely to develop severe symptoms in advance so that treatments can be targeted accordingly

SnoRNAs and miRNAs networks underlying COVID-19 disease severity

There is a lack of predictive markers for early and rapid identification of disease progression in COVID-19 patients. Our study aims at identifying microRNAs (miRNAs)/small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) as potential biomarkers of COVID-19 severity. Using differential expression analysis of microarray data (n = 29), we identified hsa-miR-1246, ACA40, hsa-miR-4532, hsa-miR-145-5p, and ACA18 as the top five differentially expressed transcripts in severe versus asymptomatic, and ACA40, hsa-miR-3609, ENSG00000212378 (SNORD78), hsa-miR-1231, hsa-miR-885-3p as the most significant five in severe versus mild cases. Moreover, we found that white blood cell (WBC) count, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), neutrophil (%), lymphocyte (%), red blood cell (RBC) count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, D-Dimer, and albumin are significantly correlated with the identified differentially expressed miRNAs and snoRNAs. We report a unique miRNA and snoRNA profile that is associated with a higher risk of severity in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Altogether, we present a differential expression analysis of COVID-19-associated microRNA (miRNA)/small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA) signature, highlighting their importance in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.</p

Adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with sickle cell disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies were conducted to quantify the association between sickle cell disease in pregnancy and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Data sources (Medline, Embase, Maternity and Infant care, Cochrane, Web of Science, Popline) were searched for publications to June 2014. Eligibility criteria included observational studies reporting maternal and perinatal health outcomes in pregnant women with sickle cell disease against a comparative group of pregnant women without sickle cell disease. Twenty-one studies (including 26,349 women with sickle cell disease; 26,151,746 women without sickle cell disease) were eligible for inclusion. Pregnancies in women with HbSS genotype, compared with women without sickle cell disease, were at increased risk of maternal mortality (relative risk [RR], 5.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94-18.44), preeclampsia (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.75-3.39), stillbirth (RR, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.60-5.96), preterm delivery (RR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47-3.31), and small for gestational age infants (RR, 3.72; 95% CI, 2.32-5.98). Meta-regression demonstrated that genotype (HbSS vs HbSC), low gross national income, and high study quality were associated with increased RRs. Despite advances in the management of sickle cell disease, obstetrics, and neonatal medicine, pregnancies complicated by the disease remain associated with increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes