Outcomes of coronavirus 2019 infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Information on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains limited. To understand the influence of COVID-19 infection in patients with pre-existing CKD, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and critical progression between patients with and without CKD.Methods
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational, case-control, cross-sectional, and case-series studies analyzing outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with pre-existing CKD from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases published on the Internet before 16 July 2020.Results
A total of 27 studies comprising 77,856 patients with COVID-19 infection was identified; 3922 patients with pre-existing CKD were assigned CKD group, and 73,934 patients were assigned to the non-CKD group. The pooled analysis showed that patients with CKD had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization than those without CKD [odds ratio (OR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91-2.66, p < 0.001; OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.93-6.28, p < 0.001; respectively]. Patients with CKD had a higher risk of critically ill conditions than those without CKD in the pooled analysis of studies with multivariable adjustment (adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.95-4.77, p = 0.07) and in the analysis of all included studies (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.71-2.26, p = 0.41), but both analyses did not attain statistical significance.Conclusion
COVID-19 infected patients with CKD had significantly increased risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization compared with those without CKD.
SUBMITTER: Lin YC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7985947 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:The clinical spectrum of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe pneumonia with respiratory failure and even death. More severe cases with higher mortality have been reported in older patients and in those with chronic illness such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. In this regard, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a higher rate of all-type infections and cardiovascular disease than the general population. A markedly altered immune system and immunosuppressed state may predispose CKD patients to infectious complications. Likewise, they have a state of chronic systemic inflammation that may increase their morbidity and mortality. In this review we discuss the chronic immunologic changes observed in CKD patients, the risk of COVID-19 infections and the clinical implications for and specific COVID-19 therapy in CKD patients. Indeed, the risk for severe COVID-19 is 3-fold higher in CKD than in non-CKD patients; CKD is 12-fold more frequent in intensive care unit than in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and this ratio is higher than for diabetes or cardiovascular disease; and acute COVID-19 mortality is 15-25% for haemodialysis patients even when not developing pneumonia.
| S-EPMC7367105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases each year, and obesity is an important risk factor for CKD. The main anthropometric indicators currently reflecting obesity are body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), but the rationality and merits of various indicators vary. This article aims to find whether the WHtR is a more suitable physical measurement that can predict CKD.MethodsPubmed, embase, the cochrane library, and web of science were systematically searched for articles published between 1998 and 2019 screening CKD through physical indicators. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the methodology included in the study. Meta-analysis used the Stata 12.0 software.ResultsNine studies were included, with a total of 202,283 subjects. Meta-analysis showed that according to the analysis of different genders in 6 studies, regardless of sex, WHtR was the area with the largest area under the curve (AUC). Except WHtR and visceral fat index (VFI) in women which showed no statistical difference, WHtR and other indicators were statistically different. In three studies without gender-based stratification, the area under the curve AUC for WHtR remained the largest, but only the difference between WHtR and BMI was statistically significant. When the Chinese population was considered as a subgroup, the area under the curve AUC for WHtR was the largest. Except for WHtR and VFI which showed no statistical difference in women, there was a statistically significant difference between WHtR and other indicators in men and women.ConclusionWHtR could be better prediction for CKD relative to other physical measurements. It also requires higher-quality prospective studies to verify the clinical application of WHtR.
| S-EPMC6918668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with epilepsy experience seizures, which have been reported to increase and worsen during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the association between epilepsy and COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze whether patients with epilepsy have an increased risk of having poor COVID-19 outcomes.MethodsWe comprehensively evaluated potential articles extracted from the medRxiv, Europe PMC, and PubMed databases until June 30, 2021, using selected keywords. All published studies on epilepsy and COVID-19 were selected. We used the Review Manager 5.4 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software for statistical analysis.ResultsThirteen studies with 67,131 patients with COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Evaluation of the collated data revealed an association between epilepsy and increased severity of COVID-19 (OR, 1.69; 95%CI: 1.11-2.59; p = 0.010; I2 = 29%; random-effect modeling) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR, 1.71; 95%CI: 1.14-2.56; p = 0.010; I2 = 53%; random-effect modeling). The results also showed that the association between epilepsy and increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 is influenced by sex and neurodegenerative disease.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that patients with epilepsy are at risk of having poor COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with epilepsy need special attention and should be prioritized for administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. Registration details: PROSPERO (CRD42021264979).
| S-EPMC8590948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObservational studies suggest that the risk and clinical prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are related to low vitamin D status; however, the data are inconsistent.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between low vitamin D status and COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search was conducted with PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to September 25, 2020. The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied to estimate pooled results. Random - or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity were used for the meta-analysis. Funnel plots and Egger regression tests were used to assess publication bias.ResultsA total of ten articles with 361,934 participants were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled OR in the fixed-effect model showed that vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.00-2.05). In addition, COVID-19-positive individuals had lower vitamin D levels than COVID-19-negative individuals (SMD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). Significant heterogeneity existed in both endpoints. Funnel plots and Egger regression tests revealed significant publication bias.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that low vitamin D status might be associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on the clinical severity and prognosis in patients with COVID-19.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration no: CRD42020216740.
| S-EPMC7833186 | 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:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented burden on the delivery of intensive care services worldwide.Research questionWhat is the global point estimate of deaths and risk factors for patients who are admitted to ICUs with severe COVID-19?Study design and methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched up to August 1, 2020. Pooled prevalence of participant characteristics, clinical features, and outcome data was calculated with the use of random effects models. Subgroup analyses were based on geographic distribution, study type, quality assessment, sample size, end date, and patient disposition. Studies that reported in-hospital mortality rate of adult patients (age >18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to an ICU met study eligibility criteria. Critical evaluation was performed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies.ResultsForty-five studies with 16,561 patients from 17 countries across four continents were included. Patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to ICUs had a mean age of 62.6 years (95% CI, 60.4-64.7). Common comorbidities included hypertension (49.5%; 95% CI, 44.9-54.0) and diabetes mellitus (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.7-30.8). More than three-quarters of cases experienced the development of ARDS (76.1%; 95% CI, 65.7-85.2). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 67.7% (95% CI, 59.1-75.7) of case, vasopressor support in 65.9% (95% CI, 52.4-78.4) of cases, renal replacement therapy in 16.9% (95% CI, 12.1-22.2) of cases, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 6.4% (95% CI, 4.1-9.1) of cases. The duration of ICU and hospital admission was 10.8 days (95% CI, 9.3-18.4) and 19.1 days (95% CI, 16.3-21.9), respectively, with in-hospital mortality rate of 28.1% (95% CI, 23.4-33.0; I2 = 96%). No significant subgroup effect was observed.InterpretationCritically ill patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to the ICU require substantial organ support and prolonged ICU and hospital level care. The pooled estimate of global death from severe COVID-19 is <1 in 3.
| S-EPMC7557272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntegration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19.MethodA literature search was performed in six databases from injection to June 2020. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered as eligible. The quality of included RCTs were assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to do meta-analysis.ResultEleven studies with 1259 patients were included in this study. CMD included herbal decoction and Chinese patent medicine. The methodological quality was evaluated as generally unclear. The results of meta-analysis showed that the integration of CMD and WM had better efficacy than WM in number of patients turned to severe and critical type (RR = 0.47, 95% CI=[0.32, 0.69], P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD= -7.95, 95% CI=[-14.66, -1.24], P = 0.02), defervescence time (MD= -1.20, 95% CI=[-2.03, -0.38], P = 0.004), cough resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.15, 1.64], P = 0.0004), fatigue resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.02, 1.83], P = 0.04), and tachypnea resolution rate (RR = 2.20, 95% CI=[1.11, 4.39], P = 0.02). As for safety, there was no significant difference between two groups.ConclusionCMD may bring potential benefit to patients suffered from COVID-19. However, the quality of included trials is not good enough. High quality study with core outcome set are still required.
| S-EPMC7385501 | 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:BackgroundIt is unclear whether asthma has an influence on contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or having worse outcomes from COVID-19 disease.ObjectiveTo explore the prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and the relationship between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC7889465 | biostudies-literature