Background and aims COVID-19 is a dominant pulmonary disease, with multisystem involvement, depending upon comorbidities. Its profile in patients with pre-existing chronic liver disease (CLD) is largely unknown. We studied the liver injury patterns of SARS-Cov-2 in CLD patients, with or without cirrhosis. Methods Data was collected from 13 Asian countries on patients with CLD, known or newly diagnosed, with confirmed COVID-19. Results Altogether, 228 patients [185 CLD without cirrhosis and 43 with cirrhosis] were enrolled, with comorbidities in nearly 80%. Metabolism associated fatty liver disease (113, 61%) and viral etiology (26, 60%) were common. In CLD without cirrhosis, diabetes [57.7% vs 39.7%, OR = 2.1 (1.1-3.7), p = 0.01] and in cirrhotics, obesity, [64.3% vs. 17.2%, OR = 8.1 (1.9-38.8), p = 0.002] predisposed more to liver injury than those without these. Forty three percent of CLD without cirrhosis presented as acute liver injury and 20% cirrhotics presented with either acute-on-chronic liver failure [5 (11.6%)] or acute decompensation [4 (9%)]. Liver related complications increased (p < 0.05) with stage of liver disease; a Child-Turcotte Pugh score of 9 or more at presentation predicted high mortality [AUROC 0.94, HR = 19.2 (95 CI 2.3-163.3), p < 0.001, sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 94.4%). In decompensated cirrhotics, the liver injury was progressive in 57% patients, with 43% mortality. Rising bilirubin and AST/ALT ratio predicted mortality among cirrhosis patients. Conclusions SARS-Cov-2 infection causes significant liver injury in CLD patients, decompensating one fifth of cirrhosis, and worsening the clinical status of the already decompensated. The CLD patients with diabetes and obesity are more vulnerable and should be closely monitored.

The COVID-19 pandemic is showing an exponential growth, mandating an urgent need to develop an effective treatment. Indeed, to date, a well-established therapy is still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) added to standard care in patients with COVID-19. This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted at three major university hospitals in Egypt. One hundred ninety-four patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the study after signing informed consent. They were equally randomized into two arms: 97 patients administrated HCQ plus standard care (HCQ group) and 97 patients administered only standard care as a control arm (control group). The primary endpoints were recovery within 28 days, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. The two groups were matched for age and gender. There was no significant difference between them regarding any of the baseline characteristics or laboratory parameters. Four patients (4.1%) in the HCQ group and 5 (5.2%) patients in the control group needed mechanical ventilation (P = 0.75). The overall mortality did not differ between the two groups, as six patients (6.2%) died in the HCQ group and 5 (5.2%) died in the control group (P = 0.77). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that HCQ treatment was not significantly associated with decreased mortality in COVID-19 patients. So, adding HCQ to standard care did not add significant benefit, did not decrease the need for ventilation, and did not reduce mortality rates in COVID-19 patients.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Background and Aims: COVID-19 is a dominant pulmonary disease, with multisystem involvement, depending upon co morbidities. Its profile in patients with pre-existing chronic liver disease (CLD) is largely unknown. We studied the liver injury patterns of SARS-Cov-2 in CLD patients, with or without cirrhosis. Methods: Data was collected from 13 Asian countries on patients with CLD, known or newly diagnosed, with confirmed COVID-19. Result: Altogether, 228 patients [185 CLD without cirrhosis and 43 with cirrhosis] were enrolled, with comorbidities in nearly 80%. Metabolism associated fatty liver disease (113, 61%) and viral etiology (26, 60%) were common. In CLD without cirrhosis, diabetes [57.7% vs 39.7%, OR=2.1(1.1-3.7), p=0.01] and in cirrhotics, obesity, [64.3% vs. 17.2%, OR=8.1(1.9-38.8), p=0.002) predisposed more to liver injury than those without these. Forty three percent of CLD without cirrhosis presented as acute liver injury and 20% cirrhotics presented with either acute-on-chronic liver failure [5(11.6%)] or acute decompensation [4(9%)]. Liver related complications increased (p<0.05) with stage of liver disease; a Child-Turcotte Pugh score of 9 or more at presentation predicted high mortality [AUROC-0.94, HR=19.2(95CI 2.3-163.3), p<0.001, sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 94.4%). In decompensated cirrhotics, the liver injury was progressive in 57% patients, with 43% mortality. Rising bilirubin and AST/ALT ratio predicted mortality among cirrhosis. Conclusions: SARS-Cov-2 infection causes significant liver injury in CLD patients, decompensating one fifth of cirrhosis, and worsening the clinical status of the already decompensated. The CLD patients with diabetes and obesity are more vulnerable and should be closely monitored.

No specific treatment for COVID-19 infection is available up till now, and there is a great urge for effective treatment to reduce morbidity and mortality during this pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the effect of combining chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) and zinc in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at three major University hospitals in Egypt. One hundred ninety-one patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection were randomized into two groups: group I (96) patients received both HCQ and zinc, and group II (95) received HCQ only. The primary endpoints were the recovery within 28 days, the need for mechanical ventilation, and death. The two groups were matched for age and gender. They had no significant difference regarding any of the baseline laboratory parameters or clinical severity grading. Clinical recovery after 28 days was achieved by 79.2% in the zinc group and 77.9% in zinc-free treatment group, without any significant difference (p = 0.969). The need for mechanical ventilation and the overall mortality rates did not show any significant difference between the 2 groups either (p = 0.537 and 0.986, respectively). The age of the patient and the need for mechanical ventilation were the only risk factors associated with the patients' mortality by the univariate regression analysis (p = 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). Zinc supplements did not enhance the clinical efficacy of HCQ. More randomized studies are needed to evaluate the value of adding zinc to other therapies for COVID 19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04447534

Researchers around the world are working at record speed to find the best ways to treat and prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of hospitalized mild to moderate COVID‐19 infected patients. This was a randomized open‐label controlled study that included 164 patients with COVID‐19. Patients were randomized into two groups where Group 1 (Ivermectin group) included patients who received ivermectin 12 mg once daily for 3 days with standard care and Group 2 (control group) included patients who received standard protocol of treatment alone for 14 days. The main outcomes were mortality, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed up for 1 month. Overall, 82 individuals were randomized to receive ivermectin plus standard of care and 82 to receive standard of care alone. Patients in the ivermectin group had a shorter length of hospital stay (8.82 ± 4.94 days) than the control group (10.97 ± 5.28 days), but this was not statistically significant ( p = 0.085). Three patients (3.7%) in each group required mechanical ventilation ( p = 1.00). The death rate was three patients in the ivermectin group (3.7%) versus four patients (4.9%) in the control group without any significant difference between the two groups ( p = 1.00). Although there was no statistically significant difference in any endpoints by ivermectin doses (12 mg/day for 3 days); there was an observed trend to reducing hospital stay in the ivermectin‐treated group.

No abstract

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.