A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%-99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%-23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%-17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%-17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 10 9 /L, 95% CI 0.83-1.03 × 10 9 /L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54-45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30–73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30–78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623 .

Background Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Methods Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. Results Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. Conclusions In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Background: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential.We aimed to collate and summarize all published systematic reviews on the coronavirus disease .Methods: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019 to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory and radiological findings) and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). Meta-analysis on prevalence of clinical outcomes was performed.Results: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty. Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of 13 reviews was rated as "critically low", one as "low", one as "moderate" and two as "high". Symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein (associated with lymphocytopenia) and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. Chest imaging described a frequent pattern of uni-or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. Only one review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3% to 14%. Conclusions:Confidence in the results of most reviews was "critically low". Future studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodologies. The majority of included systematic reviews were hampered by imprecise search strategy and no previous protocol submission.All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. Clinical SymptomsThe incidence of symptoms were shown as following: Fever 82%, (CI) 56%-99%; Cough 61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; Muscle aches and/or fatigue 36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; Dyspnea 26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; Headache 12%, 95% CI 4%-23%; Sore throat 10%, 95% CI 5%-17% and gastrointestinal symptoms 9%,95% CI 3%-17%.

Purpose The incidence, patient features, risk factors and outcomes of surgery-associated postoperative acute kidney injury (PO-AKI) across different countries and health care systems is unclear. Methods We conducted an international prospective, observational, multi-center study in 30 countries in patients undergoing major surgery (> 2-h duration and postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit admission). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of PO-AKI within 72 h of surgery defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. Secondary endpoints included PO-AKI severity and duration, use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results We studied 10,568 patients and 1945 (18.4%) developed PO-AKI (1236 (63.5%) KDIGO stage 1500 (25.7%) KDIGO stage 2209 (10.7%) KDIGO stage 3). In 33.8% PO-AKI was persistent, and 170/1945 (8.7%) of patients with PO-AKI received RRT in the ICU. Patients with PO-AKI had greater ICU (6.3% vs. 0.7%) and hospital (8.6% vs. 1.4%) mortality, and longer ICU (median 2 (Q1-Q3, 1–3) days vs. 3 (Q1-Q3, 1–6) days) and hospital length of stay (median 14 (Q1-Q3, 9–24) days vs. 10 (Q1-Q3, 7–17) days). Risk factors for PO-AKI included older age, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease), type, duration and urgency of surgery as well as intraoperative vasopressors, and aminoglycosides administration. Conclusion In a comprehensive multinational study, approximately one in five patients develop PO-AKI after major surgery. Increasing severity of PO-AKI is associated with a progressive increase in adverse outcomes. Our findings indicate that PO-AKI represents a significant burden for health care worldwide. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-023-07169-7.

Dear Editor,Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a common and significant complication in critically ill patients. As no curative treatment exists, prevention of AKI is paramount, especially in high-risk patients. Several randomized controlled trials suggest that a biomarker-guided implementation of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) care bundle reduces the incidence of AKI postoperatively [1][2][3]. Implementation of this care bundle is recommended in high-risk patients after cardiac surgery [4]. This comprises regular monitoring of kidney function, hemodynamic optimization, and consideration of advanced hemodynamic monitoring, as well as avoidance of hyperglycemia, nephrotoxic drugs, and radiocontrast agents, if possible.So far, the impact of each individual component of the bundle is unclear. Better understanding would enable prioritization, resource-allocation and clinical management of those at high risk of AKI. To investigate the treatment effects of individual bundle components, we combined data of the two PrevAKI-trials including 554 cardiac surgery patients at high risk for AKI, as defined by elevated urinary biomarkers TIMP2*IGFBP7 [1,2]. Patients were randomized to standard care versus implementation of the care bundle (Supplementary S1).Univariate logistic regression of the bundle's components was performed as a risk factor analysis of the whole cohort. Following this, individual treatment effects were analyzed, using the same method for the intervention group only (Fig. 1a). Hypotension, low cardiac

No abstract

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) leads to higher mortality, carries a cardiovascular risk and alters inflammation. All three aspects harbor overlaps with the clinical manifestation of COVID-19. This study aimed to identify the impact of CHIP on COVID-19 pathophysiology. 90 hospitalized patients were analyzed for CHIP. In addition, their disease course and outcome were evaluated. With a prevalence of 37.8%, the frequency of a CHIP-driver mutation was significantly higher than the prevalence expected based on median age (17%). CHIP increases the risk of hospitalization in the course of the disease but has no age-independent impact on the outcome within the group of hospitalized patients. Especially in younger patients (45 – 65 years), CHIP was associated with persistent lymphopenia. In older patients (> 65 years), on the other hand, CHIP-positive patients developed neutrophilia in the long run. To what extent increased values of cardiac biomarkers are caused by CHIP independent of age could not be elaborated solely based on this study. In conclusion, our results indicate an increased susceptibility to a severe course of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization associated with CHIP. Secondly, they link it to a differentially regulated cellular immune response under the pressure of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hence, a patient’s CHIP-status bears the potential to serve as biomarker for risk stratification and to early guide treatment of COVID-19 patients.