Asthma in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
It is unclear whether asthma has an influence on contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or having worse outcomes from COVID-19 disease.Objective
To explore the prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and the relationship between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.Methods
The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. The pooled effect size (ES) was used to evaluate the association between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.Results
The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 worldwide was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.6-9.0) based on 116 articles (119 studies) with 403,392 cases. The pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with reduced risk of poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06). Similarly, the pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with the reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05). However, the pooled ES based on adjusted effect estimates indicated that asthma was significantly associated with reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86).Conclusion
The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 was similar to that in the general population, and asthma might be an independent protective factor for the death of patients with COVID-19, which suggests that we should pay high attention to patients co-infected asthma and COVID-19 and take locally tailored interventions and treatment. Further well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to verify our findings.
SUBMITTER: Shi L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7889465 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate, especially in patients with severe illness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three electronic Chinese databases were searched from December 1, 2019 to April 29, 2020. Eligible studies reporting potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 were identified. Unadjusted prognostic effect estimates were pooled using the random-effects model if data from at least two studies were available. Adjusted prognostic effect estimates were presented by qualitative analysis.ResultsThirty-six observational studies were identified, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 106 potential risk factors were tested, and the following important predictors were associated with mortality: advanced age, male sex, current smoking status, preexisting comorbidities (especially chronic kidney, respiratory, and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases), symptoms of dyspnea, complications during hospitalization, corticosteroid therapy and a severe condition. Additionally, a series of abnormal laboratory biomarkers of hematologic parameters, hepatorenal function, inflammation, coagulation, and cardiovascular injury were also associated with fatal outcome.ConclusionWe identified predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19. These findings could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and improve clinical outcomes in such patients.
| S-EPMC8264491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coagulation activation has been reported in several cohorts of patients Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the true burden of systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database to identify studies that reported the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy using established criteria in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy (disseminated intravascular coagulation [DIC] and/or sepsis-induced coagulopathy [SIC]). Pooled prevalences and 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were calculated using random-effects model. A total of 5 studies including 1210 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled prevalence of systemic coagulopathy was 7.1% (95%CI: 3.2%,15.3%, I2 = 93%). The pooled prevalence of DIC (N = 721) and SIC (N = 639) were 4.3% (95%CI 1.7%, 10.4%, I2 = 84%) and 16.2% (95%CI: 9.3%, 26.8%, I2 = 74%), respectively. Only 2 studies reported the prevalence of elevated D-dimer levels with the pooled prevalence of 84.6% (95%CI: 52.0%,96.5%, I2 = 94%). Average D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were remarkably increased, while platelet counts, PT, and aPTT ratios were minimally affected in COVID-19. The estimated prevalence of systemic coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19 was low despite D-dimer elevation in most patients. Relatively low systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 may contribute to the high incidence of thrombosis rather than bleeding in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7812392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSeveral studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.Design and settingWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.Subjects and interventionStudies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.Measurements and main resultsData on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.ConclusionsDespite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8439644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aim to systematically review the characteristics of asymptomatic infection in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed and EMBASE were electronically searched to identify original studies containing the rate of asymptomatic infection in COVID-19 patients before 20 May 2020. Then mate-analysis was conducted using R version 3.6.2. A total of 50 155 patients from 41 studies with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection is 15.6% (95% CI, 10.1%-23.0%). Ten included studies contain the number of presymptomatic patients, who were asymptomatic at screening point and developed symptoms during follow-up. The pooled percentage of presymptomatic infection among 180 initially asymptomatic patients is 48.9% (95% CI, 31.6%-66.2%). The pooled proportion of asymptomatic infection among 1152 COVID-19 children from 11 studies is 27.7% (95% CI, 16.4%-42.7%), which is much higher than patients from all aged groups. Abnormal CT features are common in asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. For 36 patients from 4 studies that CT results were available, 15 (41.7%) patients had bilateral involvement and 14 (38.9%) had unilateral involvement in CT results. Reduced white blood cell count, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and increased C-reactive protein were also recorded. About 15.6% of confirmed COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. Nearly half of the patients with no symptoms at detection time will develop symptoms later. Children are likely to have a higher proportion of asymptomatic infection than adults. Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients could have abnormal laboratory and radiational manifestations, which can be used as screening strategies to identify asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC7404334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles in patients with epilepsy remain poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the available evidence of COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy.MethodsWe performed a literature search in the Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register database between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2022. We included eligible studies that provided information on the COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy. We investigated the association between baseline characteristics of patients with epilepsy and unvaccination status using a fixed-effect model. We calculated the pooled overall willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the safety profiles after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with epilepsy.ResultsTen eligible observational studies and two case reports yielded 2589 participants with epilepsy or their caregivers. Among 2145 participants that provided the information of vaccination status, 1508 (70.3%) patients with epilepsy were not administered COVID-19 vaccine, and 58% (95%CI 40-75%) of respondents were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Seizure status (active versus inactive, OR 1.84 95%CI 1.41-2.39, I2 = 0%) rather than seizure type (focal versus non-focal, OR 1.22 95%CI 0.94-1.58, I2 = 0%) was associated with COVID-19 unvaccination status. Vaccines were well-tolerated; epilepsy-related problems such as increase in seizure frequency and status epilepticus after COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon.ConclusionsOur findings suggest a low COVID-19 vaccination coverage and willingness in patients with epilepsy. Vaccination against COVID-19 appears to be well-tolerated and safe in patients with epilepsy, supporting a positive outlook toward vaccination in this population.
| S-EPMC9239978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (≥60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (≥60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.
| S-EPMC7423832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial.Research questionWhat is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group.ResultsA total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens.InterpretationOur results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids.
| S-EPMC7598533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe proportion of COVID-19 patients having active pulmonary tuberculosis, and its impact on COVID-19 related patient outcomes, is not clear. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the proportion of patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis among COVID-19 patients, and to assess if comorbid pulmonary tuberculosis worsens clinical outcomes in these patients.MethodsWe queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies providing data on (a) proportion of COVID-19 patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis or (b) severe disease, hospitalization, or mortality among COVID-19 patients with and without active pulmonary tuberculosis. We calculated the proportion of tuberculosis patients, and the relative risk (RR) for each reported outcome of interest. We used random-effects models to summarize our data.ResultsWe retrieved 3,375 citations, and included 43 studies, in our review. The pooled estimate for proportion of active pulmonary tuberculosis was 1.07% (95% CI 0.81%-1.36%). COVID-19 patients with tuberculosis had a higher risk of mortality (summary RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.56-2.39, from 17 studies) and for severe COVID-19 disease (summary RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.05-2.02, from 20 studies), but not for hospitalization (summary RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91-3.81, from four studies), as compared to COVID-19 patients without tuberculosis.ConclusionActive pulmonary tuberculosis is relatively common among COVID-19 patients and increases the risk of severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related mortality.
| S-EPMC8530351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged with a high transmissibility rate and resulted in numerous negative impacts on global life. Preventive measures such as face masks, social distancing, and vaccination helped control the pandemic. Nonetheless, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as Omega and Delta, as well as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection, raise additional concerns. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the overall prevalence of reinfection on global and regional scales.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across three databases, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest Central, including all articles pertaining to COVID-19 reinfection without language restriction. After critical appraisal and qualitative synthesis of the identified relevant articles, a meta-analysis considering random effects was used to pool the studies.ResultsWe included 52 studies conducted between 2019 and 2022, with a total sample size of 3,623,655 patients. The overall prevalence of COVID-19 reinfection was 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-4.8%; n = 52), with high heterogeneity between studies. Africa had the highest prevalence of 4.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.5%; n = 3), whereas Oceania and America had lower estimates of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.4%; n = 1) and 1% (95% CI: 0.8-1.3%; n = 7), respectively. The prevalence of reinfection in Europe and Asia was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.5%; n = 8) and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.4-4.3%; n = 43), respectively. Studies that used a combined type of specimen had the highest prevalence of 7.6% (95% CI: 5.8-9.5%; n = 15) compared with those that used oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs only that had lower estimates of 6.7% (95% CI: 4.8-8.5%; n = 8), and 3.4% (95% CI: 2.8-4.0%; n = 12) respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19 reinfection occurs with varying prevalence worldwide, with the highest occurring in Africa. Therefore, preventive measures, including vaccination, should be emphasized to ensure control of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10140730 | biostudies-literature