Three months of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rafiq D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7267122 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Three months of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Rafiq Danish D Batool Asiya A Bazaz M A MA
Reviews in medical virology 20200518 4
The pandemic of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2019), reminiscent of the 2002-SARS-CoV outbreak, has completely isolated countries, disrupted health systems and partially paralyzed international trade and travel. In order to be better equipped to anticipate transmission of this virus to new regions, it is imperative to track the progress of the virus over time. This review analyses information on progression of the pandemic in the past 3 months and systematically discusses the characteristics ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We aimed to review the data available to evaluate the long-term consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 6 months and above. We searched relevant observational cohort studies up to 9 February 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the Pooled Prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of long-term consequences. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 40 studies involving 10,945 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were included. Of the patients, 63.87% had at least one consequence at the 6 month follow-up, which decreased to 58.89% at 12 months. The most common symptoms were fatigue or muscle weakness (PP 6-12 m = 54.21%, PP ≥ 12 m = 34.22%) and mild dyspnea (Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, mMRC = 0, PP 6-12 m = 74.60%, PP ≥ 12 m = 80.64%). Abnormal computerized tomography (CT; PP 6-12 m = 55.68%, PP ≥ 12 m = 43.76%) and lung diffuse function impairment, i.e., a carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) of < 80% were common (PP 6-12 m = 49.10%, PP ≥ 12 m = 31.80%). Anxiety and depression (PP 6-12 m = 33.49%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.40%) and pain or discomfort (PP 6-12 m = 33.26%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.31%) were the most common problems that affected patients' quality of life. Our findings suggest a significant long-term impact on health and quality of life due to COVID-19, and as waves of ASRS-CoV-2 infections emerge, the long-term effects of COVID-19 will not only increase the difficulty of care for COVID-19 survivors and the setting of public health policy but also might lead to another public health crisis following the current pandemic, which would also increase the global long-term burden of disease.
| S-EPMC9180091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsOriginal studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models.ResultsOf 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.
| S-EPMC8327046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID = CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ≥5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference = 4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR = 7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR = 3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR = 5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference = -6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference = 5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR = 2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.
| S-EPMC7859578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.
| S-EPMC8231929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Background Some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors experience prolonged and varying symptoms, a condition termed post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS). However, the prevalence of chronic pulmonary sequelae of PACS during long-term follow-up remains unclear. Several studies have examined this issue and reported heterogeneous results. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence of the pulmonary sequelae of COVID-19, as demonstrated by pulmonary function testing (PFT) and chest computed tomography (CT) performed at least 6 months after initial infection. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021 to identify related studies. We investigated whether the prevalence of pulmonary sequelae decreased over time and attempted to identify the factors associated with their development by performing multiple subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Results Of the 18,062 studies identified, 30 met our eligibility criteria. Among these studies, 25 and 22 had follow-up PFT and chest CT data, respectively. The follow-up durations were approximately 6 and 12 months in 18 and 12 studies, respectively. Impaired diffusion capacity was the most common abnormality on PFT (pooled prevalence 35%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30–41%) with a prevalence of 39% (95% CI 34–45%) and 31% (95% CI 21–40%) in the 6-month and 12-month follow-up studies, respectively (P = 0.115). Restrictive pulmonary dysfunction evident as reduced forced vital capacity was less frequent (pooled prevalence 8%, 95% CI 6–11%); however, its prevalence was lower in the 12-month follow-up studies than in the 6-month follow-up studies (5% [95% CI 3–7%] vs. 13% [95% CI 8–19%], P = 0.006). On follow-up chest CT, the pooled prevalence of persistent ground-glass opacities and pulmonary fibrosis was 34% (95% CI 24–44%) and 32% (95% CI 23–40%), respectively, and the prevalence did not decrease over time. As every meta-analysis showed significant between-study heterogeneity, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify potential effect modifiers; the severity of index infection was associated with the prevalence of impaired diffusion capacity and pulmonary fibrosis. Conclusions A substantial number of COVID-19 survivors displayed pulmonary sequelae as part of PACS. Except for restrictive pulmonary dysfunction, the prevalence of these sequelae did not decrease until 1 year after initial infection. Considering the association between the severity of acute COVID-19 and risk of pulmonary sequelae, patients who recover from severe COVID-19 require close respiratory follow-up. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42021234357 Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-022-02163-x.
| S-EPMC9446643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.
| S-EPMC8054852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 pandemic has created a need to identify potential predictors of severe disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrointestinal predictors of severe COVID-19. Methods An extensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for proportional and continuous outcomes using a random-effect model. For each outcome, a 95% confidence interval (CI) and P-value were generated. Results A total of 83 studies (26912 patients, mean age 43.5±16.4 years, 48.2% female) were included. Gastrointestinal predictors of severe COVID-19 included the presence of diarrhea (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.03; P=0.01), elevated serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR 4.00, 95%CI 3.02-5.28; P<0.001), and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (OR 2.54, 95%CI 1.91-3.37; P<0.001). Significantly higher levels of mean AST (MD 14.78 U/L, 95%CI 11.70-17.86 U/L; P<0.001), ALT (MD 11.87 U/L, 95%CI 9.23-14.52 U/L; P<0.001), and total bilirubin (MD 2.08 mmol/L, 95%CI 1.36-2.80 mmol/L; P<0.001) were observed in the severe COVID-19 group compared to non-severe COVID-19 group. Conclusion Gastrointestinal symptoms and biomarkers should be assessed early to recognize severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7599357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic first broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has now spread worldwide. Laboratory findings have been only partially described in some observational studies. To date, more comprehensive systematic reviews of laboratory findings on COVID-19 are missing. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Observational studies from three databases were selected. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model meta-analysis. A total of 1106 articles were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI (China), and other sources. After screening, 28 and 7 studies were selected for a systematic review and a meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 4,663 patients included, the most prevalent laboratory finding was increased C-reactive protein (CRP; 73.6%, 95% CI 65.0-81.3%), followed by decreased albumin (62.9%, 95% CI 28.3-91.2%), increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate (61.2%, 95% CI 41.3-81.0%), decreased eosinophils (58.4%, 95% CI 46.5-69.8%), increased interleukin-6 (53.1%, 95% CI 36.0-70.0%), lymphopenia (47.9%, 95% CI 41.6-54.9%), and increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 46.2%, 95% CI 37.9-54.7%). A meta-analysis of seven studies with 1905 patients showed that increased CRP (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.4), lymphopenia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.3-6.0), and increased LDH (OR 6.7, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9) were significantly associated with severity. These results demonstrated that more attention is warranted when interpreting laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients with elevated CRP levels, lymphopenia, or elevated LDH require proper management and, if necessary, transfer to the intensive care unit.
| S-EPMC7256350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature