No abstract

No abstract

Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for COVID-19 patients. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 12, 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors with a placebo or standard care in treating COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate at day 28. Results Three RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The all-cause mortality rate at day 28 was lower among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (4.1% [28/647] versus 7.0% [48/684], OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36–0.92, I 2 = 0). The clinical recovery rate was higher among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (85.1% (579/680) versus 80.0% [547/684], OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09–1.93, I 2 = 0). Additionally, the use of JAK inhibitors was associated with a shorter time to recovery than among the controls (MD, −2.84; 95% CI, −5.56 to −0.12; I 2 = 50%). The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) was lower in the patients who used JAK inhibitors than among the controls. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the patients who used JAK inhibitors and the controls in the risk of any adverse events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64–1.34; I 2 = 33%) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45–1.44; I 2 = 46%). Conclusions JAK inhibitors can lead to a better clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and they are a safe agent in the treatment of COVID-19.

This large-scale, controlled cohort study estimated the risks of lung cancer in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Taiwan. We conducted this population-based study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan during the period from 1997 to 2010. Patients with GERD were diagnosed using endoscopy, and controls were matched to patients with GERD at a ratio of 1:4. We identified 15,412 patients with GERD and 60,957 controls. Compared with the controls, the patients with GERD had higher rates of osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, bronchiectasis, depression, anxiety, hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic liver disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease (all P < .05). A total of 85 patients had lung cancer among patients with GERD during the follow-up of 42,555 person-years, and the rate of lung cancer was 0.0020 per personyear. By contrast, 232 patients had lung cancer among patients without GERD during the follow-up of 175,319 person-years, and the rate of lung cancer was 0.0013 per person-year. By using stepwise Cox regression model, the overall incidence of lung cancer remained significantly higher in the patients with GERD than in the controls (hazard ratio, 1.53;). The cumulative incidence of lung cancer was higher in the patients with GERD than in the controls (P = .0012). In conclusion, our large population-based cohort study provides evidence that GERD may increase the risk of lung cancer in Asians.Subjects Epidemiology, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oncology

ObjectiveOur population-based research aimed to clarify the association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and mortality risk in patients with lung cancer.DesignRetrospective cohort studySettingNational health insurance research database in TaiwanParticipantsAll (n=1 37 077) Taiwanese residents who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 1997 and 2012 were identified. Eligible patients with baseline CKD (n=2269) were matched with controls (1:4, n=9076) without renal disease according to age, sex and the index day of lung cancer diagnosis.MethodsThe cumulative incidence of death was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the risk determinants were explored by the Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsMortality occurred in 1866 (82.24%) and 7135 (78.61%) patients with and without CKD, respectively (P=0.0001). The cumulative incidences of mortality in patients with and without chronic renal disease were 72.8% vs 61.6% at 1 year, 82.0% vs 76.6% at 2 years and 88.9% vs 87.2% at 5 years, respectively. After adjusting for multiple confounding factors including age and comorbidities, Cox regression analysis revealed that CKD was associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.47). Stratified analysis further showed that the association was consistent across patient subgroups.ConclusionComorbidity associated with CKD is a risk factor for mortality in patients with lung cancer.

BackgroundThe clinical characteristics of Q fever are poorly identified in the tropics. Fever with pneumonia or hepatitis are the dominant presentations of acute Q fever, which exhibits geographic variability. In southern Taiwan, which is located in a tropical region, the role of Q fever in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has never been investigated.Methodology/Principal FindingsDuring the study period, May 2012 to April 2013, 166 cases of adult CAP and 15 cases of acute Q fever were prospectively investigated. Cultures of clinical specimens, urine antigen tests for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, and paired serologic assessments for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) were used for identifying pathogens associated with CAP. From April 2004 to April 2013 (the pre-study period), 122 cases of acute Q fever were also included retrospectively for analysis. The geographic distribution of Q fever and CAP cases was similar. Q fever cases were identified in warmer seasons and younger ages than CAP. Based on multivariate analysis, male gender, chills, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver enzymes were independent characteristics associated with Q fever. In patients with Q fever, 95% and 13.5% of cases presented with hepatitis and pneumonia, respectively. Twelve (7.2%) cases of CAP were seropositive for C. burnetii antibodies, but none of them had acute Q fever. Among CAP cases, 22.9% had a CURB-65 score ≧2, and 45.8% had identifiable pathogens. Haemophilus parainfluenzae (14.5%), S. pneumoniae (6.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.8%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.0%) were the most common pathogens identified by cultures or urine antigen tests. Moreover, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, and co-infection with 2 pathogens accounted for 9.0%, 7.8%, and 1.8%, respectively.ConclusionsIn southern Taiwan, Q fever is an endemic disease with hepatitis as the major presentation and is not a common etiology of CAP.

No abstract

Aim This meta-analysis aimed to assess the usefulness of colchicine in patients with COVID-19. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and November 12, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of colchicine with other alternative treatments or placebos in patients with COVID-19 were included. Results Overall, 7 RCTs involving 16,024 patients were included; 7,794 patients were in the study group receiving colchicine and 8,230 were in the control group receiving placebo or standard treatment. The study and control groups had similar risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91–1.09; I 2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the study and control groups in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83–1.03; I 2 = 0%), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; I 2 = 58%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference, −0.42 days; 95% CI, −1.95 to 1.11; I 2 = 62%). In addition, colchicine was associated with significantly higher risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.56–2.11; I 2 = 0%) and diarrhoea (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.75–2.56; I 2 = 9%). Conclusions Colchicine does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, so it did not support the additional use of colchicine in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Key message Colchicine could not reduce the mortality of patients with COVID-19. No significant difference was observed between the colchicine and comparators in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation, need for mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. Colchicine was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events.