Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex-Specific COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Galbadage T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7331754 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex-Specific COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes.
Galbadage Thushara T Peterson Brent M BM Awada Joseph J Buck Alison S AS Ramirez Danny A DA Wilson Jason J Gunasekera Richard S RS
Frontiers in medicine 20200623
To successfully mitigate the extraordinary devastation caused by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is crucial to identify important risk factors for this disease. One such neglected health determinant is the sex of the patient. This is an essential clinical characteristic, as it can factor into a patient's clinical management and preventative measures. Some clinical studies have shown disparities in the proportion between males and females that have more severe clinical outcom ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients from ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19.MethodsDatabases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane library and MedRxiv) were searched up to 31st August 2020, for studies reporting COVID-19 data disaggregated by ethnicity. Outcomes were: risk of infection; intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death. PROSPERO ID: 180654.Findings18,728,893 patients from 50 studies were included; 26 were peer-reviewed; 42 were from the United States of America and 8 from the United Kingdom. Individuals from Black and Asian ethnicities had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals. This was consistent in both the main analysis (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 2.02, 95% CI 1.67-2.44; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.83) and sensitivity analyses examining peer-reviewed studies only (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.35; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88). Individuals of Asian ethnicity may also be at higher risk of ITU admission (pooled adjusted RR 1.97 95% CI 1.34-2.89) (but no studies had yet been peer-reviewed) and death (pooled adjusted RR/HR 1.22 [0.99-1.50]).InterpretationIndividuals of Black and Asian ethnicity are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals; Asians may be at higher risk of ITU admission and death. These findings are of critical public health importance in informing interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups.
| S-EPMC7658622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsEligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.ResultsOf 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.
| S-EPMC8239929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSex has consistently been shown to affect COVID-19 mortality, but it remains unclear how each sex's clinical outcome may be distinctively shaped by risk factors.MethodsWe studied a primary cohort of 4930 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a single healthcare system in New York City from the start of the pandemic till August 5, 2020, and a validation cohort of 1645 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the same healthcare system from August 5, 2020, to January 13, 2021.ResultsHere we show that male sex was independently associated with in-hospital mortality, intubation, and ICU care after adjusting for demographics and comorbidities. Using interaction analysis and sex-stratified models, we found that hypoxia interacted with sex to preferentially increase women's mortality risk while obesity interacted with sex to preferentially increase women's risk of intubation and intensive care in our primary cohort. In the validation cohort, we observed that male sex remained an independent risk factor for mortality, but sex-specific interactions were not replicated.ConclusionsWe conducted a comprehensive sex-stratified analysis of a large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, highlighting clinical factors that may contribute to sex differences in the outcome of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9053255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been calls for COVID-19 clinical trials to be fully representative of all demographic groups. However, limited evidence is available about the sex, racial, and ethnic representation among COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials.ObjectiveTo investigate whether female participants and racial and ethnic minority individuals are adequately represented in COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials in the US.Data sourcesIdentified studies were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or published in the PubMed database from October 2019 to February 2022.Study selectionIncluded studies must have provided the number of enrolled participants by sex, race, or ethnicity. Only interventional studies conducted in the US for the primary purpose of the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (or supportive care for) COVID-19 conditions were included.Data extraction and synthesisData on counts of enrollments by demographic variables (sex, race, and ethnicity) and location (country and state) were abstracted. Studies were broadly categorized by primary purpose as prevention (including vaccine and diagnosis studies) vs treatment (including supportive care studies). A random effects model for single proportions was used. Trial estimates were compared with corresponding estimates of representation in the US population with COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresSex, racial, and ethnic representation in COVID-19 clinical trials compared with their representation in the US population with COVID-19.ResultsOverall, 122 US-based COVID-19 clinical trials comprising 176 654 participants were analyzed. Studies were predominantly randomized trials (n = 95) for treatment of COVID-19 (n = 103). Sex, race, and ethnicity were reported in 109 (89.3%), 95 (77.9%), and 87 (71.3%) trials, respectively. Estimated representation in prevention and treatment trials vs the US population with COVID-19 was 48.9% and 44.6% vs 52.4% for female participants; 23.0% and 36.6% vs 17.7% for Hispanic or Latino participants; 7.2% and 16.5% vs 14.1% for Black participants; 3.8% and 4.6% vs 3.7% for Asian participants; 0.2% and 0.9% vs 0.2% for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander participants; and 1.3% and 1.4% vs 1.1% for American Indian or Alaska Native participants. Compared with expected rates in the COVID-19 reference population, female participants were underrepresented in treatment trials (85.1% of expected; P < .001), Black participants (53.7% of expected; P = .003) and Asian participants (64.4% of expected; P = .003) were underrepresented in prevention trials, and Hispanic or Latino participants were overrepresented in treatment trials (206.8% of expected; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, aggregate differences in representation for several demographic groups in COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials in the US were found. Strategies to better ensure diverse representation in COVID-19 studies are needed, especially for prevention trials.
| S-EPMC9857303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. We herein performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodOvid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid the Cochrane Library, and other electronic databases were searched until 30 November 2020 to identify publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 transmission, personal protective equipment use, rates of case fatality, complications, and procedural success.ResultsA total of 18 articles involving 329 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall basic reproduction rate is 0.37, while the subgroup results from Asia, Europe, and North America are 0.13, 0.44, and 0.33, respectively. The differences in personal protective equipment use between the positive transmission and non-transmission group are mainly in isolation gowns, N95 or equivalent masks, and goggles or face-shields. The rate of case fatality, complication, and procedural success are 0.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.02-0.38), 0.00 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.02), and 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-1.00), respectively. The fatality rate in Europe was the highest (0.23, 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.50), which is significantly different from other continents (p = 0.034).ConclusionThe risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within gastrointestinal endoscopy units is considerably low if proper use of personal protective equipment is applied. Similarly, a low fatality and complication rate, as well as a high procedural success rate, indicated that a full recovery of endoscopic units should be considered.
| S-EPMC8408897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel coronavirus pandemic is an ongoing challenge faced by the public and health care systems around the globe. Majority of information and evidence gathered so far regarding COVID-19 has been derived from data and studies in adult populations. Crucial information regarding the characterization, clinical symptomatology, sequelae, and overall outcomes in the pediatric population is lacking. As such, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review to collect and analyze current evidence about COVID-19 in the pediatric population.MethodA systematic search and review of scientific literatures was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and Google Scholar databases. All relevant studies until June 16, 2020 were included. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality, and random-effects model was used to conduct the primary meta-analysis. I2 value and Egger's test was used to estimate heterogeneity and publication bias respectively.ResultsWe reviewed 20 eligible studies that included 1810 pediatric patient population (<21 yo) with PCR tested COVID-19 positivity. In pooled data, majority (25 % [CI 18-32], I2 59 %) of overall COVID-19 positive patients fell in the 6-10 yr age group. 13 % ([CI 11-14], I2 78 %) of the patients were asymptomatic, with headache (67 % [CI 60-74], I2 46 %), fever (55 % [CI 52-58], I2 61 %), and cough (45 % [CI 42-49], I2 79 %) accounting for the most prevalent physical signs seen in symptomatic patients. Leukopenia (12 % [CI 9-15], I250 %) and lymphopenia (15 % [CI 13-19], I2 85 %) was common. Elevated Ferritin (26 % [CI 16-40], I2 73 %), Procal (25 % [CI 21-29 %], I2 83 %), and CRP (19 % [CI 16-22 %], I2 74 %) were other laboratory abnormalities commonly observed. Common radiological features were ground-glass opacities (36 % [CI 32-39 %], I2 92 %), normal finding (33 % [CI 30-36 %], I2 81 %), and consolidation. 29 % ([CI 26-33], I2 85 %) of the patient cases was non-severe, whereas only 5 % ([CI 1-8], I2 87 %) was severe. Mortality was observed in 0.3 % ([CI 0.1-0.4], I2 0%) of the overall cases.ConclusionCOVID-19 is prevalent across all pediatric age-groups and presents with varying degree of symptomology. However, children have a milder course of the disease with extremely favorable prognosis. Laboratory and radiological features are inconsistent and require further investigations. Additional studies are needed on this topic to corroborate findings and establish evidence-based and consistent characterization of COVID-19 in the pediatric population.
| S-EPMC7723460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo provide a precise summary and collate the hitherto available clinical evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using appropriate keywords till June 8, 2021, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting adverse clinical outcomes (ICU admission and/or mortality) in COVID-19 patients receiving vitamin D supplementation vs. those not receiving the same. Both prior use and use of vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis were considered. Unadjusted/adjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021248488).ResultsWe identified 13 studies (10 observational, 3 RCTs) pooling data retrieved from 2933 COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis of unadjusted data showed that vitamin D use in COVID-19 was significantly associated with reduced ICU admission/mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.81, p = 0.01, I2 = 66%, random-effects model). Similarly, on pooling adjusted risk estimates, vitamin D was also found to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes (pooled OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.91, p = 0.03, I2 = 80%, random-effects model). Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation was associated with improved clinical outcomes only in patients receiving the drug post-COVID-19 diagnosis and not in those who had received vitamin D before diagnosis.ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially when administered after the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, issues regarding the appropriate dose, duration, and mode of administration of vitamin D remain unanswered and need further research.
| S-EPMC8223190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate on the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. In the recent RECOVERY trial, evaluating the effect of dexamethasone, a reduced 28-day mortality in patients requiring oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation was shown. Their results have led to considering amendments in guidelines or actually already recommending corticosteroids in COVID-19. However, the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids still remain uncertain, and reliable data to further shed light on the benefit and harm are needed.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19.MethodsA systematic literature search of RCTS and observational studies on adult patients was performed across Medline/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, until October 1, 2020, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were short-term mortality and viral clearance (based on RT-PCR in respiratory specimens). Secondary outcomes were: need for mechanical ventilation, need for other oxygen therapy, length of hospital stay and secondary infections.ResultsForty-four studies were included, covering 20.197 patients. In twenty-two studies, the effect of corticosteroid use on mortality was quantified. The overall pooled estimate (observational studies and RCTs) showed a significant reduced mortality in the corticosteroid group (OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87). Furthermore, viral clearance time ranged from 10 to 29 days in the corticosteroid group and from 8 to 24 days in the standard of care group. Fourteen studies reported a positive effect of corticosteroids on need for and duration of mechanical ventilation. A trend toward more infections and antibiotic use was present.ConclusionsOur findings from both observational studies and RCTs confirm a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on short-term mortality and a reduction in need for mechanical ventilation. And although data in the studies were too sparse to draw any firm conclusions, there might be a signal of delayed viral clearance and an increase in secondary infections.
| S-EPMC7735177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors.MethodsEmbase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistic. Egger's tests for publication bias.ResultsDatabase searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (-0.057, 95% CI: -107 to -0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger's test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress.ConclusionThis study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery.Prospero registration numberCRD42020201247.
| S-EPMC10151247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The recent COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, has quickly spread throughout the world. In this study, we systematically reviewed the clinical features and outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19. METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. Case reports and case series of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were included. Two reviewers screened 366 studies and 14 studies were included. Four reviewers independently extracted the features from the studies. We used a random-effects model to analyse the incidence (P) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS:The meta-analysis included 236 pregnant women with COVID-19. The results were as follows: positive CT findings (71%; 95% CI, 0.49-0.93), caesarean section (65%; 95% CI, 0.42-0.87), fever (51%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.67), lymphopenia (49%; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70), coexisting disorders (33%; 95% CI, 0.21-0.44), cough (31%; 95% CI, 0.23-0.39), fetal distress (29%; 95% CI, 0.08-0.49), preterm labor (23%; 95% CI, 0.14-0.32), and severe case or death (12%; 95% CI, 0.03-0.20). The subgroup analysis showed that compared with non-pregnant patients, pregnant women with COVID-19 had significantly lower incidences of fever (pregnant women, 51%; non-pregnant patients, 91%; P < 0.00001) and cough (pregnant women, 31%; non-pregnant patients, 67%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:The incidences of fever, cough and positive CT findings in pregnant women with COVID-19 are less than those in the normal population with COVID-19, but the rate of preterm labor is higher among pregnant with COVID-19 than among normal pregnant women. There is currently no evidence that COVID-19 can spread through vertical transmission.
| S-EPMC7396931 | biostudies-literature