Coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7803569 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang Xiaolin X Yang Xue X Jiao Hongmei H Liu Xinmin X
Aging 20201124 24
COVID-19 patients frequently exhibit coagulation abnormalities and thrombotic events. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the association between coagulopathy and the severity of COVID-19 illness. Using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, WanFang Database, CNKI, and medRxiv, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. We then analyzed coagulation parameters in COVID-19 patients exhibiting less severe and more severe symptoms. All statisti ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated coagulopathy (CAC), characterized by hypercoagulability and an increased risk of thrombotic complications, is an important consideration in the management of patients with COVID-19. As COVID-19 is a new disease, no standard of care for the diagnosis or management of its associated coagulopathy is yet established. Whole blood viscoelastic tests, such as thromboelastography (TEG® hemostasis analyzer), analyze whole blood to provide a complete overview of the coagulation status. We conducted a systematic review of thromboelastography for management of patients with COVID-19, using MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane databases. TEG® parameter measurements and clinical outcomes data were extracted for analysis. Our review found 15 publications, with overall results showing thromboelastography can identify and assess a hypercoagulable state in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, utilization of thromboelastography in this patient population was shown to predict thrombotic complications. The benefits of thromboelastography presented here, in addition to advantages compared with laboratory coagulation tests, position thromboelastography as an important opportunity for optimizing diagnosis of CAC and improving patient management in COVID-19. Given that the benefits of thromboelastography have already been demonstrated in several other clinical applications, we anticipate that clinical data from future studies in patients with COVID-19 will further elucidate the optimal use of thromboelastography in this patient population.
| S-EPMC7911186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19.SettingThe authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to February 19, 2021, for studies reporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO.ParticipantsA total of 134 studies were selected, including 6 eligible for the comparative meta-analysis of COVID-19 versus influenza.InterventionsThe authors pooled the risk ratio and random effects model.Measurements and main resultsThe primary endpoint was the overall mortality of patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. Of the total number of 58,472 patients with COVID-19 reported, ECMO was used in 4,044 patients. The analysis suggested an overall in-hospital mortality of 39% (95% CI 0.34-0.43). In the comparative analysis, patients with COVID-19 on ECMO had a higher risk ratio (RR) for mortality when compared to influenza patients on ECMO: 72/164 (44%) v 71/186 (38%) RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.71; p = 0.03.ConclusionsECMO could be beneficial in patients with COVID-19, according to the authors' meta-analysis. The reported mortality rate was 39%. This systematic analysis can provide clinical advice in the current era and ongoing pandemic.
| S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I2=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I2=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I2=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I2=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I2=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I2=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I2=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.ConclusionsWe recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 ( CRD42021273780 ).
| S-EPMC8611638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.ResultsThe initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThe results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
| S-EPMC8690025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed over 2.5 million people worldwide, but effective care and therapy have yet to be discovered. We conducted this analysis to better understand tocilizumab treatment for COVID-19 patients.Main textWe searched major databases for manuscripts reporting the effects of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients. A total of 25 publications were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and R for the meta-analysis. Significant better clinical outcomes were found in the tocilizumab treatment group when compared to the standard care group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.70, 95% confidential interval (C): 0.54-0.90, P = 0.007]. Tocilizumab treatment showed a stronger correlation with good prognosis among COVID-19 patients that needed mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.37-0.93, P = 0.02). Among stratified analyses, reduction of overall mortality correlates with tocilizumab treatment in patients less than 65 years old (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.60-0.77, P < 0.00001), and with intensive care unit patients (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001). Pooled estimates of hazard ratio showed that tocilizumab treatment predicts better overall survival in COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24-0.84, P = 0.01), especially in severe cases (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P < 0.00001).ConclusionsOur study shows that tocilizumab treatment is associated with a lower risk of mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement among COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab may have substantial effectiveness in reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients, especially among critical cases. This systematic review provides an up-to-date evidence of potential therapeutic role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 management.
| S-EPMC8128625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Although general and local public health report deathly cases, case fatality rates are still largely unknown. Thus, we sought to evaluate the mortality of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles evaluating the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients that included clinical outcomes, between December 2020 and 24 April 2020. Two authors performed an independent selection using predefined terms of search.ResultsWe retrieved 33 studies with a total of 13,398 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis. The mortality rate of the COVID-19 patients was 17.1% (95% CI 12.7; 22.7, I2 = 96.9%). For general patients admitted to the hospital (excluding critical care-only studies) the mortality rate of the COVID-19 was 11.5% (95% CI 7.7; 16.9, I2 = 96.7%). Among critical illness studies (n = 7) we found a 40.5% mortality (95% CI 31.2; 50.6, I2 = 91.8%).ConclusionHigh COVID-19 mortality among general admitted patients and critical care cases should guide resources allocations and economic burden calculations during the pandemics.
| S-EPMC7920817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) may complicate the course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up to 24th June 2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis.Results3487 patients from 30 studies were included. Based on very low-quality evidence due to heterogeneity and risk of bias, the incidence of VTE was 26% (95% PI, 6%-66%). PE with or without DVT occurred in 12% of patients (95% PI, 2%-46%) and DVT alone in 14% (95% PI, 1%-75%). Studies using standard algorithms for clinically suspected VTE reported PE in 13% of patients (95% PI, 2%-57%) and DVT in 6% (95% PI, 0%-60%), compared to 11% (95% PI, 2%-46%) and 24% (95% PI, 2%-85%) in studies using other diagnostic strategies or patient sampling. In patients admitted to intensive care units, VTE occurred in 24% (95% PI, 5%-66%), PE in 19% (95% PI, 6%-47%), and DVT alone in 7% (95% PI, 0%-69%). Corresponding values in general wards were respectively 9% (95% PI, 0%-94%), 4% (95% PI, 0%-100%), and 7% (95% CI, 1%-49%).ConclusionsVTE represents a frequent complication in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and often occurs as PE. The threshold for clinical suspicion should be low to trigger prompt diagnostic testing.
| S-EPMC7420982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity is common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effects of obesity on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 warrant systematical investigation.ObjectiveThis study explores the effects of obesity with the risk of severe disease among patients with COVID-19.MethodsBody mass index (BMI) and degree of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation were used as indicators for obesity status. Publication databases including preprints were searched up to August 10, 2020. Clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 included hospitalization, a requirement for treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality. Risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes are presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for cohort studies with BMI-defined obesity, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI for controlled studies with VAT-defined excessive adiposity.ResultsA total of 45, 650 participants from 30 studies with BMI-defined obesity and 3 controlled studies with VAT-defined adiposity were included for assessing the risk of severe COVID-19. Univariate analyses showed significantly higher ORs of severe COVID-19 with higher BMI: 1.76 (95%: 1.21, 2.56, P = 0.003) for hospitalization, 1.67 (95%CI: 1.26, 2.21, P<0.001) for ICU admission, 2.19 (95%CI: 1.56, 3.07, P<0.001) for IMV requirement, and 1.37 (95%CI: 1.06, 1.75, P = 0.014) for death, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.43, 1.96; P<0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed increased ORs of severe COVID-19 associated with higher BMI: 2.36 (95%CI: 1.37, 4.07, P = 0.002) for hospitalization, 2.32 (95%CI: 1.38, 3.90, P = 0.001) for requiring ICU admission, 2.63 (95%CI: 1.32, 5.25, P = 0.006) for IMV support, and 1.49 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.85, P<0.001) for mortality, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 2.09 (95%CI: 1.67, 2.62; P<0.001). Compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients, severe COVID-19 cases showed significantly higher VAT accumulation with a SMD of 0.49 for hospitalization (95% CI: 0.11, 0.87; P = 0.011), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.81; P<0.001) for requiring ICU admission and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.71; P = 0.035) for IMV support. The overall SMD for severe COVID-19 was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.68; P<0.001).ConclusionsObesity increases risk for hospitalization, ICU admission, IMV requirement and death among patients with COVID-19. Further, excessive visceral adiposity appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for effective actions by individuals, the public and governments to increase awareness of the risks resulting from obesity and how these are heightened in the current global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7521361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgrounds and aimsThe role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 is not fully known. We studied the efficacy of HCQ compared to the control in COVID-19 subjects on - a. viral clearance measured by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and, b. death due to all cause.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and MedRxiv database were searched using the specific keywords up to April 30, 2020. Studies that met our objectives were assessed for the risk of bias applying various tools as indicated. Three studies each that reported the outcome of viral clearance by RT-PCR and death due to all cause, were meta-analyzed by applying inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic risk ratio (RR) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using the I2 statistic and funnel plots, respectively.ResultsMeta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 210) on viral clearance assessed by RT-PCR showed no benefit (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; p = 0.74), although with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 61.7%, p = 0.07). While meta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 474) showed a significant increase in death with HCQ, compared to the control (RR, 2.17; 95% 1.32 to 3.57; p = 0.002), without any heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.43).ConclusionsNo benefit on viral clearance but a significant increase in mortality was observed with HCQ compared to control in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7215156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance/Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a critical public health issue. Evidence has shown that metformin favorably influences COVID-19 outcomes. This study aimed to assess the benefits and risks of metformin in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from inception to February 18, 2021. Observational studies assessing the association between metformin use and the outcomes of COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included intubation, deterioration, and hospitalization. Random-effects weighted models were used to pool the specific effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratifying the meta-analysis by region, diabetic status, the adoption of multivariate model, age, risk of bias, and timing for adding metformin. Results: We identified 28 studies with 2,910,462 participants. Meta-analysis of 19 studies showed that metformin is associated with 34% lower COVID-19 mortality [odds ratio (OR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.78; I 2 = 67.9%] and 27% lower hospitalization rate (pooled OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00; I 2 = 16.8%). However, we did not identify any subgroup effects. The meta-analysis did not identify statistically significant association between metformin and intubation and deterioration of COVID-19 (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; I 2 = 0.0% for intubation and OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.65-6.34; I 2 = 79.4% for deterioration of COVID-19), respectively. Conclusions: Metformin use among COVID-19 patients was associated with a reduced risk of mortality and hospitalization. Our findings suggest a relative benefit for metformin use in nursing home and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the association between metformin use and COVID-19 outcomes. Study Registration: The study was registered on the PROSPERO on Feb 23, 2021 (CRD42021238722).
| S-EPMC8416892 | biostudies-literature