ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Alpha-1 antitrypsin in COVID-19 patients: a dual-center screening study in Malaysia.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT) deficiency has been recognized as an adverse prognostic determinant in severe instances of COVID-19.
objectiveTo determine the A1AT phenotypes and levels in individuals at various clinical stages of COVID-19 compared to healthy controls.
designCase-control study. SETTINGS: Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II (HRPZ II) and Hospital Ampang, Malaysia. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe analysis included a total of 282 patients. We categorized 188 COVID-19 patients from two centres in Malaysia into two groups: mild to moderate (stages 1-3) and severe to critical (stages 4-5) and compared them with 94 healthy controls.
main outcome measuresA1AT phenotypes and levels in different COVID-19 stages compared to healthy controls. SAMPLE SIZE: 282 subjects.
resultsThe frequency (n) and percentage (%) in the control group, 88 (93.6) exhibited PiMM phenotypes, whereas 6 (6.4) displayed PiXM/PiYM phenotypes. Within the mild to moderate COVID-19 group, 88 (93.6) had PiMM phenotypes, 3 (3.2) featured PiXM/PiYM, and 1 presented PiBM phenotypes. Among severe to critical COVID-19 patients, the PiMM phenotype was identified in 61 (64.9) with 16 (17) having PiBM phenotypes, 4 (4.5) displaying PiCM, 2 (2.1) featuring PiXM/PiYM, and 1 (1.1) presenting PiEM phenotypes. Variants such as MS, MZ, S, and Z were undetected. However, 12 COVID-19 patient samples yielded inconclusive results. Median (IQR: 25th to 75th percentile) A1AT concentrations for controls were 1.8 (1.3-2.3) g/L, for mild to moderate cases 1.9 (1.2-2.6) g/L, and for severe to critical COVID-19 cases 2.1 (1.4-2.8) g/L.
conclusionThis research identifies the PiMM phenotype as the predominant phenotype expression within the studied population. This prevalence underscores the potential role of genetic factors in determining the biological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The presence of another phenotype variant across the study population suggests a nuanced genetic landscape that warrants further exploration. LIMITATION: The absence of follow-up A1AT quantification and baseline measurements limits the assessment of disease progression. The isolectric focusing phenotyping technique used might have missed specific A1ATD variants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.