Background: As an immune modulator, vitamin D has been implicated in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcome. We aim to systematically explore the association of vitamin D serum levels with COVID-19 severity and prognosis. Methods: The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to estimate pooled results from six studies. The prognostic performance of vitamin D serum levels for predicting adverse outcomes with detection of the best cutoff threshold was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision tree analysis by combining vitamin D levels and clinical features was applied to predict severity in COVID-19 patients. Results: Mean vitamin D serum level of 376 patients, was 21.9 nmol/L (95% CI = 15.36-28.45). Significant heterogeneity was found (I 2 = 99.1%, p < .001). Patients with poor prognosis (N = 150) had significantly lower serum levels of vitamin D compared with those with good prognosis (N = 161), representing an adjusted standardized mean difference of −0.58 (95% Cl = −0.83 to −0.34, p < .001). Conclusion: Serum vitamin D levels could be implicated in the COVID-19 prognosis. Diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency could be a helpful adjunct in assessing patients'
Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is the most significant global health crisis. In this study, we conducted a meta‐analysis to find the association between liver injuries and the severity of COVID‐19 disease. Online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science direct, were searched to detect relevant publications up to 16 April 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity between studies, a fixed‐ or random‐effects model was applied to pool data. Publication bias Egger's test was also performed. Meta‐analysis of 20 retrospective studies (3428 patients), identified that patients with a severe manifestation of COVID‐19 exhibited significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin values with prolonged prothrombin time. Furthermore, lower albumin level was associated with a severe presentation of COVID‐19. Liver dysfunction was associated with a severe outcome of COVID‐19 disease. Close monitoring of the occurrence of liver dysfunction is beneficial in early warning of unfavorable outcomes.
A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.
Introduction—heterogeneity in clinical outcomes and survival was observed in patients with papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) and distant metastases. Here, we investigated the effect of distant metastases sites on survival in PTC patients. Methods—patients with a diagnosis of PTC and known metastases were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1975–2016). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to analyze the effect of distant metastases sites on thyroid cancer-specific survival (TCSS) and overall survival (OS). Results—from 89,694 PTC patients, 1819 (2%) developed distant metastasis at the initial diagnosis, of whom 26.3% presented with the multiple-organ disease. The most common metastatic sites were lung (53.4%), followed by bone (28.1%), liver (8.3%), and brain (4.7%). In metastatic patients, thyroid cancer-specific death accounted for 73.2%. Kaplan–Meier curves showed decreased OS in patients with metastases to the brain (median OS = 5 months) and liver (median OS = 6 months) compared to lung (median OS = 10 months) and bone (median OS = 23 months). Moreover, multiple organ metastasis had a higher mortality rate (67.4%) compared to single organ metastasis (51.2%, p < 0.001). Using multivariate analysis, risk factors that significantly influence TCSS and OS were male gender (HR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.17–2.94, p < 0.001, and HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.40–2.57, p = 0.009), higher tumor grade (HR = 7.31, 95% CI = 2.13–25.0, p < 0.001 and HR = 4.76, 95% CI = 3.93–5.76, p < 0.001), multiple organ involvement (HR = 6.52, 95% CI = 1.50–28.39, p = 0.026 and HR = 5.08, 95% CI = 1.21–21.30, p = 0.013), and brain metastasis (HR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.15–2.89, p < 0.001 and HR = 4.21, 95% CI = 2.20–8.07, p = 0.010). Conclusion—the pattern of distant metastatic organ involvement was associated with variability in OS in PTC. Multi-organ metastasis and brain involvement are associated with lower survival rates in PTC. Knowledge of the patterns of distant metastasis is crucial to personalize the treatment and follow-up strategies.
Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been recently adopted into the practice of thyroidology in the United States, although its use as an alternative to traditional thyroid surgery in Asia and Europe came near the turn of the 21st century. In the United States, only a few studies with small sample sizes have been published to date. We examined outcomes of benign thyroid nodules treated with RFA from 2 North American institutions. Methods: We performed a prospective, multi-institutional cohort study of thyroid nodules treated with RFA between July 2019 and January 2022. Demographics, sonographic characteristics of thyroid nodules, thyroid function profiles, procedural details, complications, and nodule volume measurements at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up were evaluated. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify sonographic features associated with treatment failure. Results: A total of 233 nodules were included. The median and interquartile range of volume reduction rate (VRR) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 54% [interquartile range (IQR): 36%-73%], 58% (IQR: 37%-80%), 73% (IQR: 51%-90%), and 76% (IQR: 52%-90%), respectively (P < 0.001). Four patients presented with toxic adenomas. All patients were confirmed euthyroid at 3-month postprocedure follow-up. Two patients developed temporary hoarseness of voice, but no hematoma or nodular rupture occurred postprocedure. Elastography was significantly associated with VRR. Compared with soft nodules, stiff nodules were more likely to have a lower VRR (odds ratio: 11.64, 95% confidence interval: 3.81-35.53, P < 0.05), and mixed elasticity was also more likely to have a lower VRR (odds ratio: 4.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.62-14.85, P < 0.05). Conclusions: This is the largest multi-institutional North American study examining thyroid nodule treatment response to RFA. RFA is a safe and effective treatment option that allows preservation of thyroid function with minimal risk of procedural complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.