Dataset Information

[COVID-19 and Smoking: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence].

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine if tobacco use in patients with Covid-19 is associated with a negative disease course and adverse outcome, and if smoking, current and past, is associated with a greater possibility of developing COVID-19.

Material and methods

A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of previously published works were performed. The search strategy included all known descriptors for Covid-19 and tobacco and was conducted in different databases. Appropriate statistical models were used to address the effect size in meta-analysis, namely random effects and fixed effects model.

Results

Thirty-four articles were identified in the SR of which 19 were included in the MA. Being a smoker or former smoker was shown to be a risk factor for worse progression of Covid-19 infection (OR 1.96, 95% CI, 1.36 - 2.83) and a greater probability of presenting a more critical condition (OR 1.79 95% CI, 1.19 - 2.70). As limitations of the MA, we found that most of the studies analyzed were observational with limited publication bias. Two studies that disagreed with the rest were included, although after withdrawing them from the MA, smoking was maintained as a risk factor for worse progress.

Conclusion

Current and past smoking produces a more serious clinical form of Covid-19 and more frequently leads to intensive care admission, intubation, and death.

SUBMITTER: Jimenez-Ruiz CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7381922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and effects of current smoking on adverse outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsA systematic review of the literature (PubMed) identified 18 (from a total of 1398) relevant studies. Pooled current smoking prevalence was compared with the gender-adjusted and gender and age-adjusted, population-based expected prevalence by calculating prevalence odds ratio (POR). The association between current, compared with non-current and former, smoking and adverse outcome was examined. A secondary analysis was performed by including 12 pre-publications (30 studies in total). All analyses were performed using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAmong 6515 patients, the pooled prevalence of current smoking was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.8-9.1%]. The gender-adjusted POR was 0.20 (95% CI: 0.16-0.25, p < 0.001), and the gender and age-adjusted POR was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19-0.30, p < 0.001). Current smokers were more likely to have an adverse outcome compared with non-current smokers [odds ratio (OR): 1.53, 95%CI: 1.06-2.20, p = 0.022] but less likely compared with former smokers (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74, p = 0.003). When pre-publications were added (n = 10,631), the gender-adjusted POR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.38, p < 0.001) and the gender and age-adjusted POR was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.24-0.48, p < 0.001).ConclusionThis meta-analysis of retrospective observational case series found an unexpectedly low prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hospitalized current smokers had higher odds compared with non-current smokers but lower odds compared with former smokers for an adverse outcome. Smoking cannot be considered a protective measure for COVID-19. However, the hypothesis that nicotine may have a protective effect in COVID-19 that is partially masked by smoking-related toxicity and by the abrupt cessation of nicotine intake when smokers are hospitalized should be explored in laboratory studies and clinical trials using pharmaceutical nicotine products.

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 has major effects on the clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes among patients, producing severe symptoms and death. Smoking has been reported as one of the factors that increases severity and mortality rate among COVID-19 patients. However, the effect of smoking on such medical outcomes is still controversial. This study conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) on the association between smoking and negative outcomes among COVID-19 patients.MethodsElectronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Google Scholar, were systematically searched from the initiation of the database until 12 December 2020. All relevant studies about smoking and COVID-19 were screened using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of eligible articles. Random meta-analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot, Begg's test and Egger's test.ResultsA total of 1248 studies were retrieved and reviewed. A total of 40 studies were finally included for meta-analysis. Both current smoking and former smoking significantly increase the risk of disease severity (OR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.16-2.15, p=0.004; and OR=2.48; 95% CI: 1.64-3.77, p<0.001; respectively) with moderate appearance of heterogeneity. Similarly, current smoking and former smoking also significantly increase the risk of death (OR=1.35; 95% CI: 1.12-1.62, p=0.002; and OR=2.58; 95% CI: 2.15-3.09, p<0.001; respectively) with moderate appearance of heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias, which was tested by the funnel plot, Begg's test and Egger's test.ConclusionsSmoking, even current smoking or former smoking, significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 severity and death. Further causational studies on this association and ascertianing the underlying mechanisms of this relation is warranted.

Project description:Background and objectives A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Materials and methods Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and abstract. Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I2=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I2=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I2=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I2=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I2=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Conclusions Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundE-cigarettes are currently being debated regarding their possible role in smoking cessation and as they are becoming increasingly popular, the research to date requires investigation.ObjectivesTo investigate whether the use of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation or reduction, and whether there is any difference in efficacy of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine on smoking cessation.Data sourcesA systematic review of articles with no limit on publication date was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases.MethodsPublished studies, those reported smoking abstinence or reduction in cigarette consumption after the use of e-cigarettes, were included. Studies were systematically reviewed, and meta-analyses were conducted using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect and random-effects models. Degree of heterogeneity among studies and quality of the selected studies were evaluated.ResultsSix studies were included involving 7,551 participants. Meta-analyses included 1,242 participants who had complete data on smoking cessation. Nicotine filled e-cigarettes were more effective for cessation than those without nicotine (pooled Risk Ratio 2.29, 95%CI 1.05-4.97). Amongst 1,242 smokers, 224 (18%) reported smoking cessation after using nicotine-enriched e-cigarettes for a minimum period of six months. Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20 (95%CI 0.11-0.28). Use of e-cigarettes was also associated with a reduction in the number of cigarettes used.LimitationsIncluded studies were heterogeneous, due to different study designs and gender variation. Whilst we were able to comment on the efficacy of nicotine vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we were unable to comment on the efficacy of e-cigarettes vs. other interventions for cessation, given the lack of comparator groups in the studies included in this meta-analysis.ConclusionsUse of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation and reduction. More randomised controlled trials are needed to assess effectiveness against other cessation methods.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsRCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).ResultsTwenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35).ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.