Introduction Statins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage. Methods Literatures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. Results Thirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88). Conclusion Patients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.

Introduction The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. Results Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapinecontaining regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. Conclusion Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Context.-Older adults with advanced lung cancer experience high symptom burden at end of life (EOL), yet hospice enrollment often happens late or not at all. Receipt of medications to manage symptoms in the outpatient setting, outside the Medicare hospice benefit, has not been described. Objectives.-We examined patterns of symptom management medication receipt at EOL for older adults who died of lung cancer. Methods.-This retrospective cohort used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify decedents diagnosed with lung cancer at age 67 years and older between January 2008 and December 2013 who survived six months and greater after diagnosis. Using Medicare Part B and D claims, we identified monthly receipt of outpatient medications for symptomatic management of pain, emotional distress, fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, and nausea/ vomiting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between medication receipt and patient demographic characteristics, comorbidity, and concurrent therapy. Results.-Of the 16,246 included patients, large proportions received medications for dyspnea (70.7%), pain (62.5%), and emotional distress (49.4%), with lower prevalence for other symptoms. Medication receipt increased from six months to one month before death. Women and dual Medicaid enrolled were more likely to receive medications for pain, emotional distress, dyspnea, and nausea/vomiting. Receipt of symptom management medications decreased with increasing age and racial/ethnical minorities. Conclusion.-Symptom management medication receipt was common and increasing toward EOL. Lower use by males, older adults, and nonwhites may reflect poor access or poor patientprovider communication. Further research is needed to understand these patterns and assess adequacy of symptom management in the outpatient setting.