Objective: A higher BMI has become acknowledged as one of the important risk factors for developing critical condition in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). In addition to BMI, body composition, and particularly visceral adiposity, might be an even more accurate measure to stratify patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the distributions of computed‐tomography‐quantified fat mass and critical condition of patients with COVID‐19.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in five databases for studies published until November 17, 2020. In the meta‐analysis, pooled mean difference (standardized mean difference [SMD]) of visceral fat area (VFA; in square centimeters) was calculated between patients in the intensive care unit and those in general ward and between patients with the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and those without the IMV requirement.Results: The quantitative synthesis revealed that patients requiring intensive care had higher VFA values (SMD = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.20‐0.71, P < 0.001) compared with patients on the general ward. Similarly, patients requiring IMV had higher VFA values (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.05‐0.71, P = 0.026) compared with patients without the IMV requirement.Conclusions: VFA values were found to be significantly higher in patients with critical condition. Therefore, abdominal adiposity seems to be a risk factor in COVID‐19, and patients with central obesity might need special attention.

Despite the growing knowledge of the clinicopathological features of COVID-19, the correlation between early changes in the laboratory parameters and the clinical outcomes of patients is not entirely understood. In this study, we aimed to assess the prognostic value of early laboratory parameters in COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the available literature in five databases. The last search was on July 26, 2020, with key terms related to COVID-19. Eligible studies contained original data of at least ten infected patients and reported on baseline laboratory parameters of patients. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. 93 and 78 studies were included in quantitative and qualitative syntheses, respectively. Higher baseline total white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate-dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), D-dimer and lower absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (WMD_ALC = − 0.35 × 10⁹/L [CI − 0.43, − 0.27], p < 0.001, I² = 94.2%; < 0.8 × 10⁹/L, OR_ALC = 3.74 [CI 1.77, 7.92], p = 0.001, I² = 65.5%) were all associated with higher mortality rate. On admission WBC, ALC, D-dimer, CRP, LDH, and CK changes could serve as alarming prognostic factors. The correct interpretation of laboratory abnormalities can guide therapeutic decisions, especially in early identification of potentially critical cases. This meta-analysis should help to allocate resources and save lives by enabling timely intervention.

Repeated positivity and reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) is a significant concern. Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of repeatedly positive testing after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recovery. We performed a systematic literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. With available individual patient data reporting on repeatedly SARS-CoV-2 positive (RSP) patients, case reports, and case series were included in this analysis. We performed a descriptive analysis of baseline characteristics of repeatedly positive cases. We assessed the cases according to the length of their polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative interval between the two episodes. Risk factors for the severity of second episodes were evaluated. Overall, we included 123 patients with repeated positivity from 56 publications, with a mean repeated positivity length of 47.8 ± 29.9 days. Younger patients were predominant in the delayed (>90 days) recurrent positive group. Furthermore, comparing patients with RSP intervals of below 60 and above 60 days, we found that a more severe disease course can be expected if the repeated positivity interval is shorter. Severe and critical disease courses might predict future repeatedly positive severe and critical COVID-19 episodes. In conclusion, our results show that the second episode of SARS-CoV-2 positivity is more severe if it happens within 60 days after the first positive PCR. On the other hand, the second episode’s severity correlates with the first.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Eligible studies reported differences in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by cfDNA status. The random effect model yielded the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Detection of circulant-tumor DNA (ctDNA), KRAS mutations and other cfDNA alterations constitute detectable cfDNA biomarkers. Altogether, 38 studies (3,318 patients) were eligible. Progression-free and overall survival were decreased with detectable ctDNA (HR = 1.92, 95 %CI:(1.29,2.86); HR = 2.25, 95 %CI:(1.73,2.92)) and KRAS mutations (HR = 1.88, CI:1.22,2.92,); HR = 1.52, 95 %CI:(1.22,1.90)) respectively, across various stages. In unresectable cases, ctDNA (HR = 2.50, 95 %CI:(1.94,3.23)), but not KRAS mutations (HR = 1.16, 95 %CI:(0.46,2.94)) signaled risk for progression. Detectable cfDNA biomarkers correlated with worse prognosis in resectable cases and if detected during treatment. In conclusion, cfDNA biomarkers indicate accelerated progression and decreased survival in PDAC. Significance of KRAS mutations detection in unresectable cases is to be determined.

Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common health condition which prevalence increases with age. Besides lifestyle modifications, passive heating could be a promising intervention to improve glyce...

Daratumumab has shown clinical benefit in multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding daratumumab to backbone anti-myeloma treatments. Systematic search was performed up to August 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing the outcomes of backbone therapy with and without daratumumab in relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed myeloma (RRMM and NDMM, respectively). Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were death or disease progression, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and stringent complete response (sCR). Secondary outcomes were complete response or better and safety endpoints prespecified in the study protocol: PROSPERO (CRD42020222904). In NDMM, MRD negativity [OR = 3.61 (CI 2.33–5.61)] and sCR [OR = 2.29 (CI 1.49–3.51)] were more likely and death or disease progression [HR = 0.47 (CI 0.39–0.57)] was less likely to occur with daratumumab compared to control. Regarding RRMM, MRD negativity [OR = 5.43 (CI 2.76–10.66)] and sCR [OR = 3.08 (CI 2.00–4.76)] were more likely and death or disease progression was less likely [HR = 0.50 (CI 0.37–0.67)] with daratumumab compared to control. The addition of daratumumab has shown high clinical efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile for the treatment of NDMM and RRMM regarding the endpoints examined.