A comparison of mortality-related risk factors of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lu L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7334925 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A comparison of mortality-related risk factors of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lu Lvliang L Zhong Wenyu W Bian Ziwei Z Li Zhiming Z Zhang Ke K Liang Boxuan B Zhong Yizhou Y Hu Manjiang M Lin Li L Liu Jun J Lin Xi X Huang Yuji Y Jiang Junying J Yang Xingfen X Zhang Xin X Huang Zhenlie Z
The Journal of infection 20200704 4
<h4>Objective</h4>Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic. This systematic review compares mortality risk factors including clinical, demographic and laboratory features of COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The aim is to provide new strategies for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis, using five databases to compare the predictors of death for COVID-19, SARS an ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is a new human coronavirus which is spreading with epidemic features in China and other Asian countries; cases have also been reported worldwide. This novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a respiratory illness that may lead to severe pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19 shows some peculiar pathogenetic, epidemiological and clinical features which to date are not completely understood. AIMS:To provide a review of the differences in pathogenesis, epidemiology and clinical features of COVID-19, SARS and MERS. SOURCES:The most recent literature in the English language regarding COVID-19 has been reviewed, and extracted data have been compared with the current scientific evidence about SARS and MERS epidemics. CONTENT:COVID-19 seems not to be very different from SARS regarding its clinical features. However, it has a fatality rate of 2.3%, lower than that of SARS (9.5%) and much lower than that of MERS (34.4%). The possibility cannot be excluded that because of the less severe clinical picture of COVID-19 it can spread in the community more easily than MERS and SARS. The actual basic reproductive number (R0) of COVID-19 (2.0-2.5) is still controversial. It is probably slightly higher than the R0 of SARS (1.7-1.9) and higher than that of MERS (<1). A gastrointestinal route of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, which has been assumed for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation. IMPLICATIONS:There is still much more to know about COVID-19, especially as concerns mortality and its capacity to spread on a pandemic level. Nonetheless, all of the lessons we learned in the past from the SARS and MERS epidemics are the best cultural weapons with which to face this new global threat.
| S-EPMC7176926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA meta-analysis and systematic review was conducted on kidney-related outcomes of three recent pandemics: SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, which were associated with potentially fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsA search of all published studies until 16 June 2020 was performed. The incidence/prevalence and mortality risk of acute and chronic renal events were evaluated, virus prevalence, and mortality in preexisting hemodialysis patients was investigated.ResultsA total of 58 eligible studies involving 13452 hospitalized patients with three types of coronavirus infection were included. The reported incidence of new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) was 12.5% (95% CI: 7.6%-18.3%). AKI significantly increased the mortality risk (OR = 5.75, 95% CI 3.75-8.77, p < 0.00001) in patients with coronavirus infection. The overall rate of urgent-start kidney replacement therapy (urgent-start KRT) use was 8.9% (95% CI: 5.0%-13.8%) and those who received urgent-start KRT had a higher risk of mortality (OR = 3.43, 95% CI 2.02-5.85, p < 0.00001). Patients with known chronic kidney disease (CKD) had a higher mortality than those without CKD (OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.56-2.49, p < 0.00001). The incidence of coronavirus infection was 7.7% (95% CI: 4.9%-11.1%) in prevalent hemodialysis patients with an overall mortality rate of 26.2% (95% CI: 20.6%-32.6%).ConclusionsPrimary kidney involvement is common with coronavirus infection and is associated with significantly increased mortality. The recognition of AKI, CKD, and urgent-start KRT as major risk factors for mortality in coronavirus-infected patients are important steps in reducing future mortality and long-term morbidity in hospitalized patients with coronavirus infection.
| S-EPMC7717867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7465945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:The aim of this systematic review was to report pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus spectrum infections, and particularly coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease because of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection during pregnancy. Data Sources:Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched electronically utilizing combinations of word variants for coronavirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or Middle East respiratory syndrome or MERS or COVID-19 and pregnancy. The search and selection criteria were restricted to English language. Study Eligibility Criteria:Inclusion criteria were hospitalized pregnant women with a confirmed coronavirus related-illness, defined as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or COVID-19. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods:We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and reported pooled proportions, so that a pooled proportion may not coincide with the actual raw proportion in the results. The pregnancy outcomes observed included miscarriage, preterm birth, preeclampsia, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and mode of delivery. The perinatal outcomes observed were fetal distress, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal asphyxia, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, perinatal death, and evidence of vertical transmission. Results:Nineteen studies including 79 hospitalized women were eligible for this systematic review: 41 pregnancies (51.9%) affected by COVID-19, 12 (15.2%) by MERS, and 26 (32.9%) by SARS. An overt diagnosis of pneumonia was made in 91.8%, and the most common symptoms were fever (82.6%), cough (57.1%), and dyspnea (27.0%). For all coronavirus infections, the pooled proportion of miscarriage was 64.7% (8/12; 95% confidence interval, 37.9-87.3), although reported only for women affected by SARS in two studies with no control group; the pooled proportion of preterm birth <37 weeks was 24.3% (14/56; 95% confidence interval, 12.5-38.6); premature prelabor rupture of membranes occurred in 20.7% (6/34; 95% confidence interval, 9.5-34.9), preeclampsia in 16.2% (2/19; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-34.1), and fetal growth restriction in 11.7% (2/29; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-24.4), although reported only for women affected by SARS; 84% (50/58) were delivered by cesarean; the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 11.1% (5/60; 95% confidence interval, 84.8-19.6), and 57.2% of newborns (3/12; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-99.8) were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. When focusing on COVID-19, the most common adverse pregnancy outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks, occurring in 41.1% of cases (14/32; 95% confidence interval, 25.6-57.6), while the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 7.0% (2/41; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-16.3). None of the 41 newborns assessed showed clinical signs of vertical transmission. Conclusion:In hospitalized mothers infected with coronavirus infections, including COVID-19, >90% of whom also had pneumonia, preterm birth is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome. COVID-19 infection was associated with higher rate (and pooled proportions) of preterm birth, preeclampsia, cesarean, and perinatal death. There have been no published cases of clinical evidence of vertical transmission. Evidence is accumulating rapidly, so these data may need to be updated soon. The findings from this study can guide and enhance prenatal counseling of women with COVID-19 infection occurring during pregnancy, although they should be interpreted with caution in view of the very small number of included cases.
| S-EPMC7104131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWithin this large-scale study, we compared clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, radiographic signs, and outcomes of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS to find unique features.MethodWe searched all relevant literature published up to February 28, 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity test, we used either random or fixed-effect models to analyze the appropriateness of the pooled results. Study has been registered in the PROSPERO database (ID 176106).ResultOverall 114 articles included in this study; 52 251 COVID-19 confirmed patients (20 studies), 10 037 SARS (51 studies), and 8139 MERS patients (43 studies) were included. The most common symptom was fever; COVID-19 (85.6%, P < .001), SARS (96%, P < .001), and MERS (74%, P < .001), respectively. Analysis showed that 84% of Covid-19 patients, 86% of SARS patients, and 74.7% of MERS patients had an abnormal chest X-ray. The mortality rate in COVID-19 (5.6%, P < .001) was lower than SARS (13%, P < .001) and MERS (35%, P < .001) between all confirmed patients.ConclusionsAt the time of submission, the mortality rate in COVID-19 confirmed cases is lower than in SARS- and MERS-infected patients. Clinical outcomes and findings would be biased by reporting only confirmed cases, and this should be considered when interpreting the data.
| S-EPMC7300470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.
| S-EPMC8195694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdministration of glucocorticoids might reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 but have adverse cardiometabolic effects.Objectivesto investigate the effect of systemic administration of glucocorticoids on cardiovascular complications and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalised with respiratory viral infections, including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza.MethodsWe identified randomised trials published prior to July 28th, 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects method and the Hartung and Knapp adjustment were used to obtain pooled estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNo randomised trials of glucocorticoids for SARS, MERS or influenza reported relevant outcomes. We included eleven COVID-19 randomised trials (8109 patients). Overall, compared to placebo or standard care, glucocorticoids were not associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.09). In a pre-specified sub-analysis, in-hospital mortality was reduced by 19% when follow-up was restricted to 14 days from randomisation (5/11 trials, 1329 patients, p = 0.02). With longer follow-up (9/11 trials, 7874 patients), administration of glucocorticoids was associated with a trend to benefit for those requiring mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.57-1.27) but possible harm for those not receiving oxygen at randomisation (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00 - 1.61), an effect that was significantly different amongst subgroups (p = 0.0359). Glucocorticoids reduced the risk of worsening renal function by 37% (4/11 trials); reported rate of other cardiovascular complications was low.ConclusionsAdministration of systemic glucocorticoids to patients hospitalised with COVID-19 does not lower mortality overall but may reduce it in those requiring respiratory support and increase it in those who do not.
| S-EPMC8719379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak currently puts health care workers at high risk of both physical and mental health problems. This study aimed to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in health care workers during coronavirus epidemics.MethodsA rapid systematic review was performed in three databases (March 24, 2020) and a current COVID-19 resource (May 28, 2020). Following study selection, study characteristics and effect measures were tabulated, and data were synthesized by using vote counting. Meta-analysis was not possible because of high variation in risk factors, outcomes and effect measures. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.ResultsOut of 2605 references, 33 observational studies were selected and the identified risk and protective factors were categorized in ten thematic categories. Most of these studies (n = 23) were performed during the SARS outbreak, seven during the current COVID-19 pandemic and three during the MERS outbreak. The level of disease exposure and health fear were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. There was evidence that clear communication and support from the organization, social support and personal sense of control are protective factors. The evidence was of very low certainty, because of risk of bias and imprecision.ConclusionSafeguarding mental health of health care workers during infectious disease outbreaks should not be treated as a separate mental health intervention strategy, but could benefit from a protective approach. This study suggests that embedding mental health support in a safe and efficient working environment which promotes collegial social support and personal sense of control could help to maximize resilience of health care workers. Low quality cross-sectional studies currently provide the best possible evidence, and further research is warranted to confirm causality.
| S-EPMC7737991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have caused substantial public health burdens and global health threats. Understanding the superspreading potentials of these viruses are important for characterizing transmission patterns and informing strategic decision-making in disease control. This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing evidence on superspreading features and to compare the heterogeneity in transmission within and among various betacoronavirus epidemics of SARS, MERS and COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were extensively searched for original studies on the transmission heterogeneity of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 published in English between January 1, 2003, and February 10, 2021. After screening the articles, we extracted data pertaining to the estimated dispersion parameter (k) which has been a commonly-used measurement for superspreading potential.FindingsWe included a total of 60 estimates of transmission heterogeneity from 26 studies on outbreaks in 22 regions. The majority (90%) of the k estimates were small, with values less than 1, indicating an over-dispersed transmission pattern. The point estimates of k for SARS and MERS ranged from 0.12 to 0.20 and from 0.06 to 2.94, respectively. Among 45 estimates of individual-level transmission heterogeneity for COVID-19 from 17 articles, 91% were derived from Asian regions. The point estimates of k for COVID-19 ranged between 0.1 and 5.0.ConclusionsWe detected a substantial over-dispersed transmission pattern in all three coronaviruses, while the k estimates varied by differences in study design and public health capacity. Our findings suggested that even with a reduced R value, the epidemic still has a high resurgence potential due to transmission heterogeneity.
| S-EPMC8409018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly and accurate prognosis prediction of the patients was urgently warranted due to the widespread popularity of COVID-19. We performed a meta-analysis aimed at comprehensively summarizing the clinical characteristics and laboratory abnormalities correlated with increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched for studies considering the relationship between COVID-19 and mortality up to 4 June 2020. Data were extracted including clinical characteristics and laboratory examination.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 9407 COVID-19 patients were included. Dyspnea (OR = 4.52, 95%CI [3.15, 6.48], P < 0.001), chest tightness (OR = 2.50, 95%CI [1.78, 3.52], P<0.001), hemoptysis (OR = 2.00, 95%CI [1.02, 3.93], P = 0.045), expectoration (OR = 1.52, 95%CI [1.17, 1.97], P = 0.002) and fatigue (OR = 1.27, 95%CI [1.09, 1.48], P = 0.003) were significantly related to increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, increased pretreatment absolute leukocyte count (OR = 11.11, 95%CI [6.85,18.03], P<0.001) and decreased pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (OR = 9.83, 95%CI [6.72, 14.38], P<0.001) were also associated with increased mortality of COVID-19. We also compared the mean value of them between survivors and non-survivors, and found that non-survivors showed significantly raise in pretreatment absolute leukocyte count (WMD: 3.27×109/L, 95%CI [2.34, 4.21], P<0.001) and reduction in pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (WMD = -0.39×109/L, 95%CI [-0.46, -0.33], P<0.001) compared with survivors. The results of pretreatment lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), procalcitonin (PCT), D-Dimer and ferritin showed the similar trend with pretreatment absolute leukocyte count.ConclusionsAmong the common symptoms of COVID-19 infections, fatigue, expectoration, hemoptysis, dyspnea and chest tightness were independent predictors of death. As for laboratory examinations, significantly increased pretreatment absolute leukocytosis count, LDH, PCT, D-Dimer and ferritin, and decreased pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count were found in non-survivors, which also have an unbeneficial impact on mortality among COVID-19 patients. Motoring these indicators during the hospitalization plays a very important role in predicting the prognosis of patients.
| S-EPMC7703957 | biostudies-literature