Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patients 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.Methods
Databases (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.Findings
18,728,893 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]).Interpretation
Individuals 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.
SUBMITTER: Sze S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7658622 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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 outcomes or, subsequently, die from this disease. However, this association has not been unequivocally established. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the association between male sex and COVID-19 severity. We systematically reviewed the literature, identified studies that matched predetermined selection criteria, and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the proportion of males among four disease severity categories. Appropriate assessment strategies were implemented to assess and minimize potential biases. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that males constituted a significantly higher proportion of those who had adverse clinical outcomes and died from COVID-19. As the coronavirus spread from the East to the West, male sex remained a consistent risk factor. Our results support the establishment of the male sex as an important risk factor for this disease. Early identification and appropriate medical care for males with lab-confirmed COVID-19 may substantially change the course of clinical prognosis, resulting in greater numbers of lives saved.
| S-EPMC7331754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between ethnicity and COVID-19 is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to assess whether ethnicity has been reported in patients with COVID-19 and its relation to clinical outcomes.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO for English-language citations on ethnicity and COVID-19 (1st December 2019-15th May 2020). We also reviewed: COVID-19 articles in NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, surveillance data and preprint articles on COVID-19 in MedRxiv to evaluate if the association between ethnicity and clinical outcomes were reported and what they showed. PROSPERO:180654.FindingsOf 207 articles in the database search, five reported ethnicity; two reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 690 articles identified from medical journals, 12 reported ethnicity; three reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 209 preprints, 34 reported ethnicity - 13 found Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals had an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and 12 reported worse clinical outcomes, including ITU admission and mortality, in BAME patients compared to White patients. Of 12 grey literature reports, seven with original data reported poorer clinical outcomes in BAME groups compared to White groups.InterpretationData on ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 in the published medical literature remains limited. However, emerging data from the grey literature and preprint articles suggest BAME individuals are at an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to White individuals and also worse clinical outcomes from COVID-19. Further work on the role of ethnicity in the current pandemic is of urgent public health importance.FundingNIHR.
| S-EPMC7267805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCOVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, and race and ethnicity have been associated with disease severity. However, the association of socioeconomic determinants with racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of race and ethnicity with COVID-19 outcomes and to examine the association between race, ethnicity, COVID-19 outcomes, and socioeconomic determinants.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Embase, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 databases was performed for studies published from January 1, 2020, to January 6, 2021.Study selectionStudies that reported data on associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 positivity, disease severity, and socioeconomic status were included and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Studies that did not have a satisfactory quality score were excluded. Overall, less than 1% (0.47%) of initially identified studies met selection criteria.Data extraction and synthesisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Associations were assessed using adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), combined prevalence, and metaregression. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were RRs, ORs, and combined prevalence values.ResultsA total of 4 318 929 patients from 68 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 370 933 patients (8.6%) were African American, 9082 (0.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 101 793 (2.4%) were Asian American, 851 392 identified as Hispanic/Latino (19.7%), 7417 (0.2%) were Pacific Islander, 1 037 996 (24.0%) were White, and 269 040 (6.2%) identified as multiracial and another race or ethnicity. In age- and sex-adjusted analyses, African American individuals (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.38-9.07; P = .008) and Hispanic individuals (RR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.28-17.20; P = .02) were the most likely to test positive for COVID-19. Asian American individuals had the highest risk of intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.60-2.34, P < .001). The area deprivation index was positively correlated with mortality rates in Asian American and Hispanic individuals (P < .001). Decreased access to clinical care was positively correlated with COVID-19 positivity in Hispanic individuals (P < .001) and African American individuals (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, members of racial and ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 positivity and disease severity. Furthermore, socioeconomic determinants were strongly associated with COVID-19 outcomes in racial and ethnic minority populations.
| S-EPMC8586903 | 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:OBJECTIVES:This article evaluates if ethnicity is an independent poor prognostic factor in COVID-19 disease. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO COVID-19 databases from inception to 15/06/2020 and medRxiv. No language restriction. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and GRADE framework were utilised to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. PROSPERO CRD42020188421. RESULTS:Seventy-two articles (59 cohort studies with 17,950,989 participants, 13 ecological studies; 54 US-based, 15 UK-based; 41 peer-reviewed) were included for systematic review and 45 for meta-analyses. Risk of bias was low: median NOS 7 of 9 (interquartile range 6-8). Compared to White ethnicity, unadjusted all-cause mortality was similar in Black (RR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.83-1.08]) and Asian (RR: 0.99 [0.85-1.16]) but reduced in Hispanic ethnicity (RR: 0.69 [0.57-0.84]). Age- and sex-adjusted risks were significantly elevated for Black (HR: 1.38 [1.09-1.75]) and Asian (HR: 1.42 [1.15-1.75]), but not for Hispanic (RR: 1.14 [0.93-1.40]). Further adjusting for comorbidities attenuated these associations to non-significance: Black (HR: 0.95 [0.72-1.25]); Asian (HR: 1.17 [0.84-1.63]); Hispanic (HR: 0.94 [0.63-1.44]). Subgroup analyses showed a trend towards greater disparity in outcomes for UK ethnic minorities, especially hospitalisation risk. CONCLUSIONS:This review could not confirm a certain ethnicity as an independent poor prognostic factor for COVID-19. Racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes may be partially attributed to higher comorbidity rates in certain ethnicity.
| S-EPMC7659894 | 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