MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3029853393 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.01.20119768

Association between NSAIDs use and adverse clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19 in South Korea: A nationwide study

2020· preprint· en· W3029853393 on OpenAlexaff
Han Eol Jeong, Hyesung Lee, Hyun Joon Shin, Young June Choe, Kristian B. Filion, Ju‐Young Shin

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortOdds ratioConfidence intervalIntensive care unitConfoundingCohort studyLogistic regressionPopulationInternal medicineEmergency medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may exacerbate COVID-19 and worsen associated outcomes by upregulating the enzyme that SARS-CoV-2 binds to enter cells. However, to our knowledge, no study has examined the association between NSAID use and the risk of COVID-19-related outcomes among hospitalised patients. METHODS We conducted a population-based cohort study using South Korea’s nationwide healthcare database, which contains data of all subjects who received a test for COVID-19 (n=69,793) as of April 8, 2020. We identified a cohort of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, where cohort entry was the date of hospitalisation. NSAIDs users were those prescribed NSAIDs in the 7 days before and including the date of cohort entry and non-users were those not prescribed NSAIDs during this period. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation use, and sepsis; our secondary outcome was cardiovascular or renal complications. We conducted logistic regression analysis to estimate odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using inverse probability of treatment weighting to minimize potential confounding. FINDINGS Of 1,824 adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (mean age 490 years, standard deviation 19 0 years; female 59%), 354 were NSAIDs users and 1,470 were non-users. Compared with non-use, NSAIDs use was associated with increased risks of the primary composite outcome (OR 1 65, 95% CI 1-21-2-24) and of cardiovascular or renal complications (OR 187, 95% CI 1-25-2-80). Our main findings remained consistent when we extended the exposure ascertainment window to include the first three days of hospitalisation (OR 187, 95% CI 1 06-3 29). INTERPRETATION Use of NSAIDs, compared with non-use, is associated with worse outcomes among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. While awaiting the results of confirmatory studies, we suggest NSAIDs be used with caution among patients with COVID-19 as the harms associated with their use may outweigh their benefits in this population. FUNDING Government-wide R&D Fund for Infectious Disease Research (HG18C0068).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→