Dataset Information

The effect of anticancer treatment on cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The relationship between cancer and COVID-19 has been revealed during the pandemic. Some anticancer treatments have been reported to have negative influences on COVID-19-infected patients while other studies did not support this hypothesis.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in WOS, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP between Dec 1, 2019 and Sept 23, 2020 for studies on anticancer treatments in patients with COVID-19. Cohort studies involving over 20 patients with cancer were included. The characteristics of the patients and studies, treatment types, mortality, and other additional outcomes were extracted and pooled for synthesis. RRs and forest plots were adopted to present the results. The literature quality and publication bias were assessed using NOS and Egger's test, respectively.

Results

We analyzed the data from 29 studies, with 5121 cancer patients with COVID-19 meeting the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in mortality between patients receiving anticancer treatment and those not (RR 1.17, 95%CI: 0.96-1.43, I² =66%, p = 0.12). Importantly, in patients with hematological malignancies, chemotherapy could markedly increase the mortality (RR 2.68, 95% CI: 1.90-3.78, I² =0%, p < 0.00001). In patients with solid tumors, no significant differences in mortality were observed (RR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.57-2.36, I² =72%, p = 0.67). In addition, our analysis revealed that anticancer therapies had no effects on the ICU admission rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.70-1.09, I² =25%, p = 0.23), the severe rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.13, I² =31%, p = 0.42), or respiratory support rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.70-1.21, I² =32%, p = 0.55) in COVID-19-infected patients with cancer. Notably, patients receiving surgery had a higher rate of respiratory support than those without any antitumor treatment (RR 1.87, 95%CI: 1.02-3.46, I² =0%, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

No significant difference was seen in any anticancer treatments in the solid tumor subgroup. Chemotherapy, however, will lead to higher mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. Multicenter, prospective studies are needed to re-evaluate the results.

SUBMITTER: Liu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7897967 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of anticancer treatment on cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Hanqing H Yang Dan D Chen Xinyue X Sun Zhihong Z Zou Yutong Y Chen Chuang C Sun Shengrong S

Cancer medicine 20201231 3

<h4>Background</h4>The relationship between cancer and COVID-19 has been revealed during the pandemic. Some anticancer treatments have been reported to have negative influences on COVID-19-infected patients while other studies did not support this hypothesis.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search was conducted in WOS, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP between Dec 1, 2019 and Sept 23, 2020 for studies on anticancer treatments in patients with COVID-19. Cohort studies involving over 20 p ...[more]

PMID: 33381923

Similar Datasets

Project description:Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of cancer on outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients has not been performed. To carry out a systematic review of the studies comparing the outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with and without cancer, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias. For all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I2 for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias. Our meta-analysis indicates a twofold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission, and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with cancer compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer. No external funding was obtained.

Project description:Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17th, 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).

Project description:BackgroundAt the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsWe included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (nAnakinra = 888, ncontrol = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I2 = 49%; low certainty of evidence).ConclusionsAnakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.

Project description:Objective To systematically evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on mortality, ICU admission, and the rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation among COVID-19 patients. Data sources and study selection The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang databases were searched from 1 December 2019 to 31 December 2022. The authors sought to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that examined the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation or intubation rates among COVID-19 patients. Data extraction and synthesis Two investigators independently searched the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3, STATA 15.1, and R 4.1.3 software. Results Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies were included, involving 3359 COVID-19 patients. The pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D supplementation did not have a significant effect on reducing mortality (Relative Risk, RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.29, P = 0.7), while the results of cohort studies indicated that vitamin D supplementation had a positive impact on reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.23–0.47, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of ICU admission (RCTs: RR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.38–1.08, P = 0.10; cohort studies: RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.08–1.29, P = 0.109) or rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation (RCTs: RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.58–1.02, P = 0.07; cohort studies: RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.55–1.58, P = 0.789). Conclusion The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not have a significant impact on reducing mortality, ICU admission, and the rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation among COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number and quality of the studies included, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42021299521.

Project description:BackgroundFavipiravir possesses high utility for treating patients with COVID-19. However, research examining the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19 is limited.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of published studies reporting the efficacy of favipiravir against COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MedRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to September 2020) to identify eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed to measure viral clearance and clinical improvement as the primary outcomes.ResultsAmong 11 eligible studies, 5 included a comparator group. Comparing to the comparator group, the favipiravir group exhibited significantly better viral clearance on day 7 after the initiation of treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-5.22), whereas no difference was noted on day 14 (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.69-6.95). Although clinical improvement was significantly better in the favipiravir group on both days 7 and 14, the improvement was better on day 14 (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.17-7.80) than on day 7 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.03-2.49). The estimated proportions of patients with viral clearance in the favipiravir arm on days 7 and 14 were 65.42 and 88.9%, respectively, versus 43.42 and 78.79%, respectively, in the comparator group. The estimated proportions of patients with clinical improvement on days 7 and 14 in the favipiravir group were 54.33 and 84.63%, respectively, compared with 34.40 and 65.77%, respectively, in the comparator group.ConclusionsFavipiravir induces viral clearance by 7 days and contributes to clinical improvement within 14 days. The results indicated that favipiravir has strong possibility for treating COVID-19, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate illness. Additional well-designed studies, including examinations of the dose and duration of treatment, are crucial for reaching definitive conclusions.

Dataset Information

The effect of anticancer treatment on cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effect of anticancer treatment on cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets