Long-term effects of COVID-19 are becoming more apparent even as the severity of acute infection is decreasing due to vaccinations and treatment. In this scoping review, we explored the current literature for the relationship between COVID-19 infection and new-onset diabetes mellitus four weeks after acute infection. We systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature published in English between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2022 to study the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus post-COVID-19 infection. This scoping review yielded 11 articles based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Except for one, all studies suggested an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus 4 weeks after acute infection. This risk appears most in the first six months after the acute COVID-19 infection and seems to increase in a graded fashion based on the severity of the initial COVID-19 infection. Our review suggests a possible association of new-onset diabetes mellitus 4 weeks after acute COVID-19 infection. Since the severity of COVID-19 infection is associated with the development of post-infectious diabetes, vaccination that reduces the severity of acute COVID-19 infection might help to reduce the risk of post-COVID-19 diabetes mellitus. More studies are needed to better understand and quantify the association of post-COVID-19 conditions with diabetes and the role of vaccination in influencing it.

Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), preliminarily a respiratory virus, can affect multiple organs, including the heart. Myocarditis is a well-known complication among COVID-19 infections, with limited large-scale studies evaluating outcomes associated with COVID-19-related Myocarditis. We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to compare COVID-19 patients with and without Myocarditis. A total of 1,659,040 patients were included in the study: COVID-19 with Myocarditis (n = 6,455, 0.4%) and COVID-19 without Myocarditis (n = 1,652,585, 99.6%). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, sudden cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, length of stay, health care utilization costs, and disposition. We conducted a secondary analysis with propensity matching to confirm results obtained by traditional multivariate analysis. COVID-19 patients with Myocarditis had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to COVID-19 patients without Myocarditis (30.5% vs. 13.1%, adjusted OR: 3 [95% CI 2.1–4.2], p < 0.001). This cohort also had significantly increased cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, sudden cardiac death, required more mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support and higher hospitalization cost. Vaccination and more research for treatment strategies will be critical for reducing worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related Myocarditis.

Seasonal epidemics of respiratory viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, parainfluenza viruses (PIVs), and human metapneumovirus (MPV) are associated with a significant healthcare burden secondary to hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every year in the United States (US) alone. Preventive measures implemented to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 infection), including facemasks, hand hygiene, stay-at-home orders, and closure of schools and local/national borders may have impacted the transmission of these respiratory viruses. In this study, we looked at the hospitalization and mortality trends for various respiratory viral infections from January 2017 to December 2020. We found a strong reduction in all viral respiratory infections, with the lowest admission rates and mortality in the last season (2020) compared to the corresponding months from the past three years (2017–2019). This study highlights the importance of public health interventions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which had far-reaching public health benefits. Appropriate and timely use of these measures may help to reduce the severity of future seasonal respiratory viral outbreaks as well as their burden on already strained healthcare systems.

COVID-19 virus, since the detection of the first case in Wuhan in 2019, has caused a worldwide pandemic with significant human, economic and social costs. Fortunately, several vaccines and treatments, both IV and oral, are currently approved against the COVID-19 virus. Paxlovid is an oral treatment option for patients with mild-to-moderate disease, and it effectively reduces disease severity in high-risk patients. Paxlovid is an oral antiviral that consists of a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavi. As an oral medication suitable for outpatient treatment, it reduces the cost, hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The pregnant population is a high-risk category for COVID-19 disease. Given their exclusion in clinical trials, there is limited data regarding Paxlovid use in pregnant and lactating women. Indirect evidence from ritonavir use as part of HAART therapy in the pregnant and lactating population with HIV has shown no significant teratogenicity. Moreover, animal studies on the use of nirmatrelvir do not suggest teratogenicity. This article summarizes the available data on ritonavir and nirmatrelvir use during pregnancy and in ongoing clinical trials. We also review the recommendations of major societies worldwide regarding Paxlovid use in pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

This study aims to provide comparative data on clinical features and in-hospital outcomes among U.S. adults admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and influenza infection using a nationwide inpatient sample (N.I.S.) data 2020. Data were collected on patient characteristics and in-hospital outcomes, including patient’s age, race, sex, insurance status, median income, length of stay, mortality, hospitalization cost, comorbidities, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor support. Additional analysis was performed using propensity matching. In propensity-matched cohort analysis, influenza-positive (and COVID-positive) patients had higher mean hospitalization cost (USD 129,742 vs. USD 68,878, p = 0.04) and total length of stay (9.9 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01), higher odds of needing mechanical ventilation (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19–3.39), and higher in-hospital mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03–4.24) relative to the COVID-positive and influenza-negative cohort. In conclusion, COVID-positive and influenza-negative patients had lower hospital charges, shorter hospital stays, and overall lower mortality, thereby supporting the use of the influenza vaccine in COVID-positive patients.

COVID-19 has brought the disparities in health outcomes for patients to the forefront. Racial and gender identity are associated with prevalent healthcare disparities. In this study, we examine the health disparities in COVID-19 hospitalization outcome from the intersectional lens of racial and gender identity. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2020 NIS dataset for hospitalizations from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 was analyzed for primary outcome of in-patient mortality and secondary outcomes of intubation, acute kidney injury (AKI), AKI requiring hemodialysis (HD), cardiac arrest, stroke, and vasopressor use. A multivariate regression model was used to identify associations. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Men had higher rates of adverse outcomes. Native American men had the highest risk of in-hospital mortality (aOR 2.0, CI 1.7–2.4) and intubation (aOR 1.8, CI 1.5–2.1), Black men had highest risk of AKI (aOR 2.0, CI 1.9–2.0). Stroke risk was highest in Asian/Pacific Islander women (aOR 1.5, p = 0.001). We note that the intersection of gender and racial identities has a significant impact on outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States with Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) men have higher risks of adverse outcomes.