Respiratory function in patients post-infection by COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Evidence suggests lungs as the organ most affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The literature on previous coronavirus infections reports that patients may experience persistent impairment in respiratory function after being discharged. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of restrictive pattern, obstructive pattern and altered diffusion in patients post-COVID-19 infection and to describe the different evaluations of respiratory function used with these patients.Methods
A systematic review was conducted in five databases. Studies that used lung function testing to assess post-infection COVID-19 patients were included for review. Two independent reviewers analysed the studies, extracted the data and assessed the quality of evidence.Results
Of the 1973 reports returned by the initial search, seven articles reporting on 380 patients were included in the data synthesis. In the sensitivity analysis, we found a prevalence of 0.39 (CI 0.24-0.56, p < 0.01, I2 = 86%), 0.15 (CI 0.09-0.22, p = 0.03, I2 = 59%), and 0.07 (CI 0.04-0.11, p = 0.31, I2 = 16%) for altered diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), restrictive pattern and obstructive pattern, respectively.Conclusion
Post-infection COVID-19 patients showed impaired lung function; the most important of the pulmonary function tests affected was the diffusion capacity.
SUBMITTER: Torres-Castro R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7687368 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: As the number of recovering COVID-19 patients increases worldwide, the persistence of symptoms and signs through the post-acute phase indicates an urgent need for prolonged follow-up care. To explore existing data about post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, this meta-analysis assesses the prevalence of persistent manifestations in multiple systems and abnormalities in lung function, as well as their related risks in patients with various severities. Methods: Articles about discharged COVID-19 patients (published from January 1, 2020 to February 23, 2021) were obtained by searching four databases. Cohort studies with follow-up periods >1 month post-discharge or >2 months post-admission were included. Results: A total of 4,478 COVID-19 patients from 16 cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Fatigue or weakness (47%) were the most prevalent physical effects of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, while psychosocial (28%) symptoms were the most common manifestations among several systems. Abnormalities in lung function of recovering patients, i.e., DLCO <80% (47%, 95% CI: 32-61%) persisted for long periods. Severe patients were more likely to present joint pain (OR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.11-3.04) and decreased lung functions compared with non-severe patients, with pooled ORs for abnormal TLC, FEV1, FVC, and DLCO of 3.05 (95% CI: 1.88-4.96), 2.72 (95% CI: 1.31-5.63), 2.52 (95% CI: 1.28-4.98), and 1.82 (95% CI: 1.32-2.50), respectively. Conclusions: Our research indicates that patients recovering from COVID-19 manifest long-term, multi-system symptoms, and the adverse effects on psychosocial health and lung functions were the most extensive and persistent. These findings together may facilitate much needed in-depth study of clinical treatments for long-term, post-acute phase symptoms that affect a great number of recovering COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8448290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with prior COVID-19 infection may present with lasting multisystem symptoms that require intervention and includes exercise rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the quality of articles, with emphasis on exercise rehabilitation, and conduct a meta-analysis on experimental and observational rehabilitation intervention studies on cardiorespiratory fitness and pulmonary function in post-COVID-19 infection patients. This systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines for evaluating rehabilitation interventions in clinical practice. A methodical search of cohort and experimental studies occurred from January 2019 up to March 2023. Thirty-two studies were included for complete analysis. The quality of the eligible studies for complete review was fair overall. The studies did not provide a detailed account of key descriptors of exercise such as volume, progression, motivational strategies, adherence and replication. There was a significant difference in the 6-minute walk test (Mean difference (MD) = 51.69 m; confidence intervals (CIs) = 36.99 to 66.38; p < 0.001, level of heterogeneity (I2) = 0), percent of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (MD = 7.95%; CIs = 3.46 to 12.44; p = 0.0005, I2 = 65%) and percent of predicted forced vital capacity (MD = 3.49%; 95% CI = 1.25 to 5.73; p = 0.002; I2 = 37%) between the experiment and control groups. The current evidence suggests that rehabilitation interventions significantly improve cardiorespiratory fitness and pulmonary function in post-COVID-19 infection patients; however, there is a need for conceptualising high-quality and long-term rehabilitation interventions, especially exercise interventions.
| S-EPMC10495653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected tens of millions of people worldwide within the last year. However, the incidence of fungal co-infection in COVID-19 patients remains unclear. To investigate the association between fungal co-infection and mortality due to COVID-19, we systematically searched Medline, Embase, MedRxiv and Cochrane Library for eligible studies published in the period from 1 January to 1 December 2020. We performed a meta-analysis of nine studies that met the inclusion criteria. In total, data from 2780 patients and 426 patients were included who were admitted to the ICU. In eight of the articles, 211 participants died due to COVID-19 infection, which means an overall mortality rate of 10.9%. The overall pooled proportion of fungal co-infection in COVID-19 patients was 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07-0.16, n = 2780, I2 = 96.8%). In terms of mortality in COVID-19 patients with fungal infection, the overall pooled proportion of mortality was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.10-0.24, n = 1944, I2 = 95.6%). These findings provide evidence suggesting a favorable use for empirical antibiotics in the majority of patients when COVID-19 infection is diagnosed. Our analysis is investigating the use of antifungal therapy to treat COVID-19 can serve as a comprehensive reference for COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8034918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the easing of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, the resurgence of both influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was observed in several countries globally after remaining low in activity for over a year. However, whether co-infection with influenza or RSV influences disease severity in COVID-19 patients has not yet been determined clearly. We aimed to understand the impact of influenza/RSV co-infection on clinical disease severity among COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of publications comparing the clinical severity between the co-infection group (ie, influenza/RSV with SARS-CoV-2) and mono-infection group (ie, SARS-CoV-2), using the following four outcomes: need or use of supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and deaths. We summarized the results by clinical outcome and conducted random-effect meta-analyses where applicable.ResultsTwelve studies reporting a total of 7862 COVID-19 patients were included in the review. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 co-infection were found to be associated with a higher risk of ICU admission (five studies, odds ratio (OR) = 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.64-2.68) and mechanical ventilation (five studies, OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.10-4.85). No significant association was found between influenza co-infection and need/use of supplemental oxygen or deaths among COVID-19 patients (four studies, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.37-2.95; 11 studies, OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.65-3.08, respectively). For RSV co-infection, data were only sufficient to allow for analyses for the outcome of deaths, and no significant association was found between RSV co-infection and deaths among COVID-19 patients (three studies, OR = 5.27, 95% CI = 0.58-47.87).ConclusionsExisting evidence suggests that co-infection with influenza might be associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk for ICU admission and for mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients whereas evidence is limited on the role of RSV co-infection. Co-infection with influenza does not increase the risk of death in COVID-19 patients.RegistrationPROSEPRO CRD42021283045.
| S-EPMC9480863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) increased the already heavy workload in the pulmonary and respiratory departments, which therefore possibly increased the prevalence of burnout among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists. We aimed to compare the differences in burnout among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists pre- and post-COVID-19 by doing a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched pulmonologist, or pulmonary, or respiratory, and burnout up to 29 January 2023 in six databases. We included studies investigating pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and reporting the prevalence of burnout among them. The risk of bias was assessed by a tool for prevalence studies. The overall prevalence of burnout was pooled.ResultsA total of 2859 records were identified and 16 studies were included in the final analysis. The included studies reported 3610 responding individuals and 2336 burnouts. The pooled prevalence of burnout was 61.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 48.6-73.2%; I2 = 96.3%). The pooled prevalence of burnout during COVID-19 was significantly higher than it was prior to the outbreak (68.4% vs. 41.6%, p = .01). The result of the meta-regression revealed that COVID-19 coverage was significantly associated with the prevalence of burnout (p = .04).ConclusionsBurnout was widely prevalent among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and increasingly perceived during COVID-19. Therefore, interventions were needed to reduce burnout in this specialty.KEY MESSASGESThe coronavirus disease-19 increased the already heavy workload in the pulmonary and respiratory departments.Burnout was widely prevalent among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and increasingly perceived during COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10353333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 10%-35% of COVID-19 infected patients experience post-COVID sequela. Among these sequelae, pain symptoms should not be neglected. In addition, the sequelae of COVID-19 also decrease the quality of life of these populations. However, meta-analyses that systematically evaluated post-COVID pain are sparse.Methods and analysisA comprehensive screening will be performed by searching MEDLINE and Embase without language restriction from inception to August 2021. Cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series will be included. Case report and interventional studies will be excluded. Studies with less than 20 participants will be also excluded. We aim to investigate the prevalence of pain-related symptoms in patients after the acute phase of COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life and pain symptoms among these populations in the post-acute phase will also be evaluated. ROBINS-I tool will be used to assess the risk of bias of cohort studies. The risk of bias tool developed by Hoy et al will be used to assess the risk of bias of prevalence studies. Metaprop command in Stata will be used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pain symptoms. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models will be used to calculate the pooled relative risks. All analyses will be calculated using Stata software (V.15.0; StataCorp) ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Results of our study will be submitted to a peer-review journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021272800.
| S-EPMC9297001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of awake prone positioning (aPP) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of aPP in acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies reporting on the clinical course of patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 treated or not treated by aPP were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (ProsperoID: CRD42022333211). The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation; the individual components of the primary outcome were secondary study outcomes. The composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation was available for 6 studies (1884 patients), five randomized and one prospective; a significant reduction in the risk of this outcome was observed in patients treated vs. not treated by aPP (33.5% vs. 39.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; I2 0%). In-hospital death was reported in 34 studies (6808 patients) and occurred in 17.4% vs. 23.5% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (random effect OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79; I2 59%); orotracheal intubation was observed in 25.8% vs. 32.7% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (27 studies, 5369 patients; random effect OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.27; I2 84%). aPP reduces the risk for death or orotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the clinical benefit of aPP outside the ICU.Registration Prospero ID: CRD42022333211.
| S-EPMC10827908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It remains undetermined whether burden of diabetes newly detected during acute COVID-19 persist in post-acute COVID phase. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the available literature and provide a pooled estimate of the risk of developing incident diabetes following hospital discharge or at least 28 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis compared to matched controls or severity matched influenza/ non-COVID-19 acute upper respiratory tract infections (AURI). Pooled analysis of 5787,027 subjects from four observational studies showed 59 % higher risk of developing incident diabetes in post-acute COVID-19 phase versus healthy controls (HR:1.59; 95 % CI:1.40-1.81, p < 0.001, I2=94 %, random-effects model). The high degree of heterogeneity in pooled estimate can be attributed to difference in demographic characteristics, hospitalization rates or disease severity between study subjects. Pooling data from three studies, higher risk of incident diabetes was also observed following COVID-19 versus severity matched non-COVID-19 respiratory tract infections (moderate-severe/hospitalized cases, HR 1.52; 95 % CI: 1.36-1.70, p < 0.01, I2=0 %, fixed-effects model; mild cases, HR 1.22; 95 % CI: 1.14-1.31, p < 0.001; I2=0 %, fixed-effects model). Majority of studies had median follow-up period of around 4 months. In view of several limitations due to retrospective design of these studies, prospective studies with long term follow-up are warranted.
| S-EPMC9148988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence shows that a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 experiences long-term consequences of the disease, but the predisposing factors are poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization associated with an increased risk of exhibiting new or persisting symptoms (Post-COVID-19 Syndrome, PCS). MedLine and WebOfScience were last searched on 30 September 2021. We included English language clinical trials and observational studies investigating prognostic factors for PCS in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19, reporting at least one individual prospective follow-up of minimum 12 weeks. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, which was judged generally moderate. Risk factors were included in the analysis if their association with PCS was investigated by at least two studies. To summarize the prognostic effect of each factor (or group of factors), odds ratios were estimated using raw data. Overall, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 13,340 patients. Associations were statistically significant for two factors: female sex with any symptoms (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27-1.82), with mental health symptoms (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21-2.29) and with fatigue (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.79); acute disease severity with respiratory symptoms (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03-2.68). The I² statistics tests were calculated to quantify the degree of study heterogeneity. This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae. The role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up. Identifying populations at greatest risk for PCS can enable the development of targeted prevention and management strategies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253467.
| S-EPMC8948827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An ongoing global pandemic, the coronavirus disease 2019 is posing threat to people all over the world. The association between COVID-19 and the risk of ischemic stroke remains unclear. This study systematically reviewed published studies and conducted meta-analysis to evaluate the association between the risk of ischemic stroke and COVID-19. This study was conducted according to guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The protocol used in this study had been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1st December 2019-19th February 2021. This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed the combined effect estimations based on odds ratios (OR) with the random-effects model. Four studies were screened from 31,634 participants including 171 COVID-19 positive patients with ischemic stroke were included. The mean age of COVID-19 positive patients with ischemic stroke was 69.45 years (Range: 63-77 years) and the male patients were 56%. Countries covered by these articles were USA, Italy and France. Three of the articles were retrospective cohort studies and one was prospective cohort study. Our analysis revealed that the risk of ischemic stroke (combined OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.08-5.38) was significantly increased. Four included studies were significantly heterogeneous (I2 = 75.2%, P = 0.007). Significant association between the risk of ischemic stroke and COVID-19 was observed in the North America group (combined OR: 2.90; 95% CI: 0.45-18.80, I2 = 89.60%, P = 0.002). This study found that the risk for ischemic stroke was increased in COVID-19 patients, especially in patients from North America. Further studies with larger sample sizes that include different ethnic populations are required to confirm our analysis.
| S-EPMC8719366 | biostudies-literature