Proportion of newly diagnosed diabetes in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sathish T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753574 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence that patients recovering after a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may have a variety of acute sequelae including newly diagnosed diabetes. However, the risk of diabetes in the post-acute phase is unclear. To solve this question, we aimed to determine if there was any association between status post-coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection and a new diagnosis of diabetes.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing new-onset diabetes after COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were all searched from inception to June 10, 2022. Three evaluators independently extracted individual study data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effects models estimated the pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of diabetes compared to non-COVID-19 after COVID-19.ResultsNine studies with nearly 40 million participants were included. Overall, the incidence of diabetes after COVID-19 was 15.53 (7.91-25.64) per 1000 person-years, and the relative risk of diabetes after COVID-19 infection was elevated (RR 1.62 [1.45-1.80]). The relative risk of type 1 diabetes was RR=1.48 (1.26-1.75) and type 2 diabetes was RR=1.70 (1.32-2.19), compared to non-COVID-19 patients. At all ages, there was a statistically significant positive association between infection with COVID-19 and the risk of diabetes: <18 years: RR=1.72 (1.19-2.49), ≥18 years: RR=1.63 (1.26-2.11), and >65 years: RR=1.68 (1.22-2.30). The relative risk of diabetes in different gender groups was about 2 (males: RR=2.08 [1.27-3.40]; females: RR=1.99 [1.47-2.80]). The risk of diabetes increased 1.17-fold (1.02-1.34) after COVID-19 infection compared to patients with general upper respiratory tract infections. Patients with severe COVID-19 were at higher risk (RR=1.67 [1.25-2.23]) of diabetes after COVID-19. The risk (RR=1.95 [1.85-2.06]) of diabetes was highest in the first 3 months after COVID-19. These results remained after taking confounding factors into account.ConclusionsAfter COVID-19, patients of all ages and genders had an elevated incidence and relative risk for a new diagnosis of diabetes. Particular attention should be paid during the first 3 months of follow-up after COVID-19 for new-onset diabetes.
| S-EPMC9666960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this work was to investigate diabetes incidence after infection with coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19). Individuals with acute upper respiratory tract infections (AURI), which are frequently caused by viruses, were selected as a non-exposed control group.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the Disease Analyzer, which comprises a representative panel of 1171 physicians' practices throughout Germany (March 2020 to January 2021: 8.8 million patients). Newly diagnosed diabetes was defined based on ICD-10 codes (type 2 diabetes: E11; other forms of diabetes: E12-E14) during follow-up until July 2021 (median for Covid-19, 119 days; median for AURI 161 days). Propensity score matching (1:1) for sex, age, health insurance, index month for Covid-19/AURI and comorbidity (obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, myocardial infarction, stroke) was performed. Individuals using corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded. Poisson regression models were fitted to obtain incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for diabetes.ResultsThere were 35,865 individuals with documented Covid-19 in the study period. After propensity score matching, demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in 35,865 AURI controls (mean age 43 years; 46% female). Individuals with Covid-19 showed an increased type 2 diabetes incidence compared with AURI (15.8 vs 12.3 per 1000 person-years). Using marginal models to account for correlation of observations within matched pairs, an IRR for type 2 diabetes of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05, 1.57) was estimated. The IRR was not increased for other forms of diabetes.Conclusions/interpretationCovid-19 confers an increased risk for type 2 diabetes. If confirmed, these results support the active monitoring of glucose dysregulation after recovery from mild forms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
| S-EPMC8923743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already raised serious concern globally as the number of confirmed or suspected cases have increased rapidly. Epidemiological studies reported that obesity is associated with a higher rate of mortality in patients with COVID-19. Yet, to our knowledge, there is no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of obesity and mortality among patients with COVID-19. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the effect of obesity, associated comorbidities, and other factors on the risk of death due to COVID-19. We did a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus between January 1, 2020, and August 30, 2020. We followed Cochrane Guidelines to find relevant articles, and two reviewers extracted data from retrieved articles. Disagreement during those stages was resolved by discussion with the main investigator. The random-effects model was used to calculate effect sizes. We included 17 articles with a total of 543,399 patients. Obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality among patients with COVID-19 (RRadjust: 1.42 (95%CI: 1.24-1.63, p < 0.001). The pooled risk ratio for class I, class II, and class III obesity were 1.27 (95%CI: 1.05-1.54, p = 0.01), 1.56 (95%CI: 1.11-2.19, p < 0.01), and 1.92 (95%CI: 1.50-2.47, p < 0.001), respectively). In subgroup analysis, the pooled risk ratio for the patients with stroke, CPOD, CKD, and diabetes were 1.80 (95%CI: 0.89-3.64, p = 0.10), 1.57 (95%CI: 1.57-1.91, p < 0.001), 1.34 (95%CI: 1.18-1.52, p < 0.001), and 1.19 (1.07-1.32, p = 0.001), respectively. However, patients with obesity who were more than 65 years had a higher risk of mortality (RR: 2.54; 95%CI: 1.62-3.67, p < 0.001). Our study showed that obesity was associated with an increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly in patients aged more than 65 years. Physicians should aware of these risk factors when dealing with patients with COVID-19 and take early treatment intervention to reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7901910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims and objectivesThis review aims to synthesize the available evidence of what patients experience when infected with COVID-19, both in hospital and post-discharge settings.DesignThis review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for qualitative systematic reviews and evidence synthesis. Reporting of results was presented according to the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) checklist.BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to be a public health crisis worldwide. Many patients diagnosed with COVID-19 have varied levels of persisting mental disorders. Previous studies have reported the degree, prevalence and outcome of psychological problems. Minimal research explored the experience of patients with long COVID. The real-life experience of patients with COVID-19 from diagnosis to post-discharge can deepen the understanding of nurses, physicians and policymakers.MethodsAll studies describing the experience of patients were included. Two authors independently appraised the methodological quality of the included studies using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research 2020.ResultsThis systematic review aggregated patients' experience of being diagnosed with COVID-19 in both hospitalized and post-discharge settings. Finally, 17 studies met inclusion criteria and quality appraisal guidelines. The selected studies in the meta-synthesis resulted in 12 categories, and further were concluded as five synthesized findings: physical symptoms caused by the virus, positive and negative emotional responses to the virus, positive coping strategies as facilitators of epidemic prevention and control, negative coping strategies as obstacles of epidemic prevention and control, and unmet needs for medical resource.ConclusionsThe psychological burden of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 is heavy and persistent. Social support is essential in the control and prevention of the epidemic. Nurses and other staff should pay more attention to the mental health of the infected patients both in and after hospitalization.Relevance to clinical practiceNurses should care about the persistent mental trauma of COVID-19 survivors and provide appropriate psychological interventions to mitigate the negative psychological consequences of them. Besides, nurses, as healthcare professionals who may have the most touch with patients, should evaluate the level of social support and deploy it for them. It is also needed for nurses to listen to patient's needs and treat them with carefulness and adequate patience in order to decrease the unmet needs of patients.
| S-EPMC9874539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate different hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for newly diagnosed elderly glioblastoma (GBM) patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), including searches on CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, clinical trial databases and manual search. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes: overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes: progression-free-survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) table for assessing individual studies and CINeMA for evaluating the certainty of the final body of evidence.ResultsFour RCTs (499 patients) were included. For OS, the estimates from NMA did not provide strong evidence of a difference between the HRTs: 40 Gray (Gy) versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.89; CI 95%: 0.42, 1.91); 34 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.85; CI 95% 0.43, 1.70); 25 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.81; CI 95% 0.32, 2.02); 34 Gy versus 40 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.57, 1.61); and 25 Gy versus 34 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.46, 1.97). We performed qualitative synthesis for AE and QoL due to data scarcity and clinical heterogeneity among studies. The four studies reported a similar QoL (assessed by different methods) between arms. One RCT reported grade ≥ 3 AE, with no evidence of a difference between arms. PFS was reported in one study (25 Gy versus 40 Gy), with no evidence of a difference between arms.ConclusionThis review found no evidence of a difference between the evaluated HRTs for efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC8568110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global challenge. Corticosteroids constitute a group of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs that are widely used in the treatment of COVID-19. Comprehensive reviews investigating the comparative proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of research articles, including observational studies and clinical trials, by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and China Academic Journal Network Publishing databases. Patients treated between December 1, 2019, and January 1, 2021, were included. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids, viral clearance and mortality. The effect size with the associated 95% confidence interval is reported as the weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes.ResultsFifty-two trials involving 15710 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids (35.19% vs. 64.49%). In addition, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the proportions of severe and nonsevere cases treated with corticosteroids (27.91% vs. 20.91%). We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by whether patients stayed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and found that the proportion of patients who received corticosteroids was significantly higher among those who stayed in the ICU than among those who did not. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroid treatment significantly delayed the viral clearance time. Finally, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 between patients who died and those who survived. This result indicates that mortality is not correlated with corticosteroid therapy.ConclusionThe proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Corticosteroid use in subjects with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections delayed viral clearance and did not convincingly improve survival; therefore, corticosteroids should be used with extreme caution in the treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8059814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of fatal outcomes. This meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence of mortality among (1) diabetic and (2) non-diabetic, and (3) the prevalence of DM, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsPublished studies were retrieved from four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and medRxiv) and appraised critically utilizing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The measures of heterogeneity were ascertained by I- squared (I 2 ) and Chi-squared (Chi 2 ) tests statistics. Predictors of heterogeneity were quantified using meta-regression models.ResultsOf the reviewed 475 publications, 22 studies (chiefly case series (59.09 %)), sourcing data of 45,775 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were deemed eligible. The weighted prevalence of mortality in hospitlized COVID-19 patients with DM (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 15.0-26.0; I 2 , 96.8 %) was 82 % (1.82-time) higher than that in non-DM patients (11.0 %, 95 % CI: 5.0-16.0; I 2 , 99.3 %). The prevalence of mortality among DM patients was highest in Europe (28.0 %; 95 % CI: 14.0-44.0) followed by the United States (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 11.0-32.0) and Asia (17.0 %, 95 % CI: 8.0-28.0). Sample size and severity of the COVID-19 were associated (p < 0.05) with variability in the prevalence of mortality. The weighted prevalence of DM among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 15-25, I 2 , 99.3 %). Overall, the quality of the studies was fair.ConclusionsHospitalized COVID-19 patients were appreciably burdened with a high prevalence of DM. DM contributed to the increased risk of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to non-DM patients, particularly among critically ill patients. Registration: PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196589).Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00779-2.
| S-EPMC8012080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without the concomitant use of azithromycin have been widely used to treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on early in vitro studies, despite their potential to prolong the QTc interval of patients.ObjectiveThis is a systematic review and metanalysis designed to assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without the addition of azithromycin on the QTc of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Materials and methodsPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and MedRxiv databases were reviewed. A random effect model meta-analysis was used, and I-square was used to assess the heterogeneity. The prespecified endpoints were ΔQTc, QTc prolongation > 500 ms and ΔQTc > 60 ms.ResultsA total of 18 studies and 7179 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The use of hydroxychloroquine with or without the addition of azithromycin was associated with increased QTc when used as part of the management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The combination therapy with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin was also associated with statistically significant increases in QTc. Moreover, the use of hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, or the combination of the two was associated with increased numbers of patients that developed QTc prolongation > 500 ms.ConclusionThis systematic review and metanalysis revealed that the use of hydroxychloroquine alone or in conjunction with azithromycin was linked to an increase in the QTc interval of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection that received these agents.
| S-EPMC8152730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background Contemporary standard-of-care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) is maximal safe resection followed by postoperative focal conformal radiotherapy (RT) plus concurrent temozolomide (TMZ) and 6-cycles of adjuvant TMZ (Stupp regimen). However, many patients continue to receive extended adjuvant TMZ (beyond 6-cycles) without solid scientific evidence. This review pools data from nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended adjuvant TMZ (>6-cycles) to standard adjuvant TMZ (6-cycles) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM for updated evidence-synthesis. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the Cochrane methodology including quality assessment of primary studies. Primary outcome of interest was comparative efficacy defined as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CIs) were extracted/computed from individual primary studies and pooled using random-effects model. Any p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Evidence-synthesis was based on pooling of data from 2578 patients enrolled in 16 nonrandomized comparative studies and 5 RCTs. Overall, extended adjuvant TMZ was associated with statistically significant reduction in the risk of progression (HR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60–0.87; p = 0.007) and death (HR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.57–0.90; p = 0.004) compared to standard adjuvant TMZ. However, on subgroup analysis, survival benefit of extended adjuvant TMZ was limited to data synthesized from retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies with no statistically significant difference in outcomes seen after pooling of data from RCTs only. Conclusion Apparent survival benefit of extended adjuvant TMZ in newly diagnosed GBM is largely driven by nonrandomized comparative studies with high inherent potential for multiple biases.
| S-EPMC10457033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of the literature to synthesize the data on EEG findings in COVID-19. Frontal EEG patterns are reported to be a characteristic finding in COVID-19 encephalopathy. Although several reports of EEG abnormalities are available, there is lack of clarity about typical findings.MethodsResearch databases were queried with the terms "COVID" OR "coronavirus" OR "SARS" AND "EEG". Available data was analyzed from 617 patients with EEG findings reported in 84 studies.ResultsThe median age was 61.3 years (IQR 45-69, 33.3 % female). Common EEG indications were altered mental status (61.7 %), seizure-like events (31.2 %), and cardiac arrest (3.5 %). Abnormal EEG findings (n = 543, 88.0 %) were sub-classified into three groups: (1) Background abnormalities: diffuse slowing (n = 423, 68.6 %), focal slowing (n = 105, 17.0 %), and absent posterior dominant rhythm (n = 63, 10.2 %). (2) Periodic and rhythmic EEG patterns: generalized periodic discharges (n = 35, 5.7 %), lateralized/multifocal periodic discharges (n = 24, 3.9 %), generalized rhythmic activity (n = 32, 5.2 %). (3) Epileptiform changes: focal (n = 35, 5.7 %), generalized (n = 27, 4.4 %), seizures/status epilepticus (n = 34, 5.5 %). Frontal EEG patterns comprised of approximately a third of all findings. In studies that utilized continuous EEG, 96.8 % (n = 243) of the 251 patients were reported to have abnormalities compared to 85.0 % (n = 311) patients who did not undergo continuous EEG monitoring (χ2 = 22.8, p =< 0.001).SignificanceEEG abnormalities are common in COVID-19 related encephalopathy and correlates with disease severity, preexisting neurological conditions including epilepsy and prolonged EEG monitoring. Frontal findings are frequent and have been proposed as a biomarker for COVID-19 encephalopathy.
| S-EPMC7569418 | biostudies-literature