Background There is growing evidence that patients recovering after a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may have a variety of acute sequelae including newly diagnosed diabetes. However, the risk of diabetes in the post-acute phase is unclear. To solve this question, we aimed to determine if there was any association between status post-coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection and a new diagnosis of diabetes. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing new-onset diabetes after COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were all searched from inception to June 10, 2022. Three evaluators independently extracted individual study data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effects models estimated the pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of diabetes compared to non-COVID-19 after COVID-19. Results Nine studies with nearly 40 million participants were included. Overall, the incidence of diabetes after COVID-19 was 15.53 (7.91–25.64) per 1000 person-years, and the relative risk of diabetes after COVID-19 infection was elevated (RR 1.62 [1.45–1.80]). The relative risk of type 1 diabetes was RR=1.48 (1.26–1.75) and type 2 diabetes was RR=1.70 (1.32–2.19), compared to non-COVID-19 patients. At all ages, there was a statistically significant positive association between infection with COVID-19 and the risk of diabetes: <18 years: RR=1.72 (1.19–2.49), ≥18 years: RR=1.63 (1.26–2.11), and >65 years: RR=1.68 (1.22–2.30). The relative risk of diabetes in different gender groups was about 2 (males: RR=2.08 [1.27–3.40]; females: RR=1.99 [1.47–2.80]). The risk of diabetes increased 1.17-fold (1.02–1.34) after COVID-19 infection compared to patients with general upper respiratory tract infections. Patients with severe COVID-19 were at higher risk (RR=1.67 [1.25–2.23]) of diabetes after COVID-19. The risk (RR=1.95 [1.85–2.06]) of diabetes was highest in the first 3 months after COVID-19. These results remained after taking confounding factors into account. Conclusions After COVID-19, patients of all ages and genders had an elevated incidence and relative risk for a new diagnosis of diabetes. Particular attention should be paid during the first 3 months of follow-up after COVID-19 for new-onset diabetes.

Immunosuppression and host vulnerability play a key role in non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) pathogenesis. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and mortality of NTM infections in immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients. We used a retrospective dataset obtained from our large, tertiary, urban, teaching hospital which is the medical records of hospitalized patients with NTM infections between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020. The information including clinical manifestations, imaging, and NTM etiological data were obtained from the hospital's clinical data system. A total of 480 patients with NTM infections completed species identification. 118 hospitalized NTM patients who met ATS/IDSA NTM diagnostic criteria and had complete medical records were included in the study. The average age was 49.4 years, 57 (48.3%) were female, and 64 (54.2%) were immunosuppressed hosts. In our study, the most common species in order of frequency were: M. intracellulare, M. abscessus, M. avium, and M. kansasii among NTM patients. The most common comorbidity was history of previous tuberculosis (30.5%). Besides malignancy, the most common immunodeficiencies were adult-onset immunodeficiency induced by anti-interferon-gamma autoantibody, SLE, and vasculitis. The immunocompromised patients with NTM had more clinical symptoms, comorbidities and lower lymphocyte counts compared to immunocompetent patients. The mortality we observed in immunocompromised patients of NTM disease was significantly higher than that of immunocompetent patients (HR 3.537, 95% CI 1.526–8.362). Immunosuppressed NTM patients with lower B and CD4+ T lymphocyte counts may more frequently present with disseminated NTM infections, clinical exacerbations, and higher mortality than immunocompetent patients.

Background Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase. Results We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) − 2.15; 95% CI [− 3.25, − 1.05] and SMD − 1.07, 95% CI [− 1.92, − 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD − 0.22; 95% CI [− 0.85, − 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [− 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.