Background: The pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health crisis worldwide. The symptoms of COVID-19 vary from mild to severe among different age groups, but the physiological changes related to COVID-19 are barely understood. Methods: In this study, a high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)-based lipidomic strategy was used to characterize the endogenous plasma lipids for cured COVID-19 patients with different ages and symptoms. These patients were further divided into two groups: those with severe symptoms or who were elderly and relatively young patients with mild symptoms. In addition, automated lipidomic identification and alignment was conducted by LipidSearch software. Multivariate and univariate analyses were used for differential comparison. Results: Nearly 500 lipid compounds were identified in each cured COVID-19 group through LipidSearch software. At the level of lipid subclasses, patients with severe symptoms or elderly patients displayed dramatic changes in plasma lipidomic alterations, such as increased triglycerides and decreased cholesteryl esters. Some of these differential lipids might also have essential biological functions. Furthermore, the differential analysis of plasma lipids among groups was performed to provide potential prognostic indicators, and the change in signaling pathways. Conclusions: Dyslipidemia was observed in cured COVID-19 patients due to the viral infection and medical treatment, and the discharged patients should continue to do consolidation therapy. This work provides valuable knowledge about plasma lipid markers and potential therapeutic targets of COVID-19 and essential resources for further research on the pathogenesis of COVID-19.
Background: Epidemiological evidences regarding the association between physical activity and the risk of lung cancer are still controversial.Objectives: We aimed to investigate the relationship between physical activity and risk of lung cancer in men and women, as well as other high-risk populations such as cigarette smokers.Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies to evaluate the association between physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and Web of Knowledge through August 2018. Study-specific relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random effect model when significant heterogeneity was detected.Results:Twenty cohort studies with a total of 2,965,811 participants and 31,807 lung cancer cases were included. There was an inverse association between the physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Compared with the low level of physical activity, the pooled RR was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.90), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 62.6%, P
heterogeneity < 0.001). The corresponding pooled RRs were 0.90 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.99) for women and 0.81 (95%CI: 0.73, 0.90) for men. Smokers with a high level of physical activity were associated with a 10% lower risk for lung cancer (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.97), while the association was not significant among non-smokers (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.03). Subgroups analysis stratified by whether the studies adjusted for smoking intensity and durations yielded the same magnitude of RR. However, the RR for subgroups without adjustment for dietary factors was 0.74 (95%CI: 0.71, 0.77), which was significantly lower than that with dietary factors adjusted (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.84, 0.95).Conclusions:Increased physical activity might be associated with lower risk of lung cancer. Such inverse association was identified among smokers rather than non-smokers. Large interventional studies are expected to further verify these findings.
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.