Prognostic value of fasting hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19 - Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic value of fasting hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19.Methods
A systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were performed up until February 18, 2021. Fasting hyperglycemia was defined as fasting plasma glucose level above the reference value. The outcome of interest was poor outcome, which was a composite of mortality and severe COVID-19. The effect estimate was in odds ratio (OR).Results
There were 9045 patients from 12 studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The prevalence of fasting hyperglycemia was 29%. The incidence of poor outcome was 15%. Fasting hyperglycemia was associated with poor outcome in COVID-19 (OR 4.72 [3.32, 6.72], p < 0.001; I2: 69.8%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis in patients without prior history of diabetes showed that fasting hyperglycemia was associated with poor outcome in COVID-19 (OR 3.387 [2.433, 4.714], p < 0.001; I2: 0, p = 0.90). Fasting hyperglycemia has a sensitivity of 0.57 [0.45, 0.68], specificity of 0.78 [0.70, 0.84], PLR of 2.6 [2.0, 3.3], NLR of 0.55 [0.44, 0.69], DOR of 5 [3, 7], and AUC of 0.74 [0.70, 0.78] for predicting poor outcome. In this pooled analysis, fasting hyperglycemia has a 32% post-test probability for poor outcome, and absence of fasting hyperglycemia confers to a 9% post-test probability. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis showed that the sensitivity and specificity varies by chronic kidney disease but not by age, male (gender), hypertension, and chronic kidney disease.Conclusion
Fasting hyperglycemia was associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients, with or without diabetes.Prospero
CRD42021237997.
SUBMITTER: Handayani DR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019489 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has led to extensive development in many fields, including the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection by mass spectrometry. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of mass spectrometry diagnostic tests developed so far, across a wide range of biological matrices, and additionally to assess risks of bias and applicability in studies published to date.Method23 retrospective observational cohort studies were included in the systematic review using the PRISMA-DTA framework, with a total of 2858 COVID-19 positive participants and 2544 controls. Risks of bias and applicability were assessed via a QUADAS-2 questionnaire. A meta-analysis was also performed focusing on sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and Youden's Index, in addition to assessing heterogeneity.FindingsSensitivity averaged 0.87 in the studies reviewed herein (interquartile range 0.81-0.96) and specificity 0.88 (interquartile range 0.82-0.98), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic summary curve of 0.93. By subgroup, the best diagnostic results were achieved by viral proteomic analyses of nasopharyngeal swabs and metabolomic analyses of plasma and serum. The performance of other sampling matrices (breath, sebum, saliva) was less good, indicating that these protocols are currently insufficiently mature for clinical application.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the potential for mass spectrometry and 'omics in achieving accurate test results for COVID-19 diagnosis, but also highlights the need for further work to optimize and harmonize practice across laboratories before these methods can be translated to clinical applications.
| S-EPMC8548837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The accuracy of commercially available tests for COVID-19 in Brazil remains unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to describe the accuracy of available tests to detect COVID-19 in Brazil. We searched at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) online platform to describe the pooled sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) for detection of IgM/IgG antibodies and for tests using naso/oropharyngeal swabs in the random-effects models. We identified 16 tests registered, mostly rapid-tests. Pooled diagnostic accuracy measures [95%CI] were: (i) for IgM antibodies Se=82% [76-87]; Sp=97% [96-98]; DOR=168 [92-305] and SROC=0.98 [0.96-0.99]; (ii) for IgG antibodies Se=97% [90-99]; Sp=98% [97-99]; DOR=1994 [385-10334] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]; and (iii) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen or molecular assays in naso/oropharyngeal swabs Se=97% [85-99]; Sp=99% [77-100]; DOR=2649 [30-233056] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]. These tests can be helpful for emergency testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. However, it is important to highlight the high rate of false negative results from tests which detect SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies in the initial course of the disease and the scarce evidence-based validation results published in Brazil. Future studies addressing the diagnostic performance of tests for COVID-19 in the Brazilian population are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7165277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Augurix SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG rapid immunoassay diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched 1:1 case-control study, blood samples from 46 real-time RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized cases and 45 healthy donors (negative controls) were studied. Diagnostic accuracy of the IgG RDT was assessed against both an in-house recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA), as an established reference method (primary endpoint), and the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (secondary endpoint).ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (61% vs 20%; P = .0001) and older (median 66 vs 47 years old; P < .001) than controls. Whole blood IgG-RDT results showed 86% and 93% overall Kendall concordance with rIFA and IgG ELISA, respectively. IgG RDT performances were similar between plasma and whole blood. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 88% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 70-96), specificity 98% (95%CI: 90-100), PPV 97% (95%CI: 80-100) and NPV 94% (95%CI: 84-98). The IgG-RDT carried out from 0 to 6 days, 7 to 14 days and > 14 days after the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test displayed 30%, 73% and 100% positivity rates in the COVID-19 group, respectively. When considering samples taken >14 days after RT-PCR diagnosis, NPV was 100% (95%CI:90-100), and PPV was 100% (95%CI:72-100).ConclusionsThe Augurix IgG-RDT done in whole blood displays a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in high COVID-19 prevalence settings, where its use could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.
| S-EPMC7404380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of deep learning (DL) in detecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to investigate how network architecture and type of datasets affect DL performance. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Inspec from January 1, 2020, to December 3, 2020, for retrospective and prospective studies on deep learning detection with at least reported sensitivity and specificity. Pooled DTA was obtained using random-effect models. Sub-group analysis between studies was also carried out for data source and network architectures. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88%, 93%; I2 = 69%) and 92% (95% CI: 88%, 94%; I2 = 88%), respectively for 19 studies. The pooled AUC and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.92) and 112.5 (95% CI: 57.7, 219.3; I2 = 90%) respectively. The overall accuracy, recall, F1-score, LR+ and LR- are 89.5%, 89.5%, 89.7%, 23.13 and 0.13. Sub-group analysis shows that the sensitivity and DOR significantly vary with the type of network architectures and sources of data with low heterogeneity are (I2 = 0%) and (I2 = 18%) for ResNet architecture and single-source datasets, respectively. The diagnosis of COVID-19 via deep learning has achieved incredible performance, and the source of datasets, as well as network architectures, strongly affect DL performance.
| S-EPMC8445811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 infection poses a worldwide public health problem affecting millions of people worldwide. There is a critical need for improvements in the noninvasive prognosis of COVID-19. We hypothesized that matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis combined with molecular-weight directed bottom-up proteomic analysis of plasma proteins may predict high and low risk cases of COVID-19. Patients and Methods: We used MALDI MS to analyze plasma small proteins and peptides isolated using C18 micro-columns from a cohort containing a total of 117 cases of high and low risk cases split into training (n = 88) and validation sets (n= 29). The plasma protein/peptide fingerprint obtained was used to train the algorithm before validation using a blinded test cohort. Several sample preparation, MS and data analysis parameters were optimized to achieve an overall accuracy of 85%, a sensitivity of 90%, and a specificity of 81% in the training set. In the blinded test set, this signature reached an overall accuracy of 93.1%, a sensitivity of 87.5%, and a specificity of 100%. From this signature, we identified two distinct regions corresponding to the single and doubly protonated proteins in the MALDI-TOF profile belonging to the same proteoforms. A combination of 1D SDS-PAGE and quantitative bottom-up proteomic analysis allowed the identification of intact and truncated forms of serum amyloid A-1 and A-2 proteins. We found a plasma proteomic profile that discriminates against patients with high and low risk COVID-19. Proteomic analysis of C18-fractionated plasma may have a role in the noninvasive prognosis of COVID-19. Further validation will be important to consolidate its clinical utility.
2021-06-22 | PXD021581 | Pride
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pulmonary opacities in COVID-19 increase throughout the illness and peak after ten days. The radiological literature mainly focuses on CT findings. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of chest radiographs (CXR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at presentation. METHODS:We retrospectively identified consecutive reverse transcription polymerase reaction-confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 104, 75% men) and patients (n = 75, 51% men) with repeated negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests. Two radiologists blindly and independently reviewed the CXRs, documented findings, assigned radiographic assessment of lung edema (RALE) scores, and predicted the patients' COVID-19 status. We calculated interobserver reliability. The score use for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19 was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS:The overall RALE score failed to identify COVID-19 patients at presentation. However, the score was inversely correlated with a COVID-19 diagnosis within ?2 days, and a positive correlation was found six days after symptom onset.Interobserver agreement with regard to separating normal from abnormal CXRs was moderate (k = 0.408) with low specificity (25% and 27%). Definite pleural effusion had almost perfect agreement (k = 0.833) and substantially reduced the odds of a COVID-19 diagnosis. Disease distribution and experts' opinion on COVID-19 status had only fair interobserver agreement. The RALE score interobserver reliability was moderate to good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.745). A high RALE score predicted a poor outcome (intensive care unit hospitalization, intubation, or death) in COVID-19 patients; a score of ?5 substantially increased the odds of having a poor outcome. CONCLUSION:Chest radiography was found not to be a valid diagnostic tool for COVID-19, as normal or near-normal CXRs are more likely early in the disease course. Pleural effusions at presentation suggest a diagnosis other than COVID-19. More extensive lung opacities at presentation are associated with poor outcome in COVID-19 patients. Thus, patients with more than minimal opacities should be monitored closely for clinical deterioration. This clinical application of CXR is its greatest strength in COVID-19 as it impacts patient care.
| S-EPMC7514404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prognostic value and diagnostic accuracy of Interleukin-8 (IL-8) in colorectal cancer have been assessed with several studies, but the conclusions were inconclusive. Thus we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of IL-8 expression on colorectal cancer prognosis, clinicopathologic features and diagnostic accuracy.MethodsComprehensive search strategies were used to search relevant literature in the PubMed, EBSCO and the ISI Web of Science databases. The correlation between IL-8 expression and prognosis, clinicopathologic features and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed.ResultsA total of 18 articles met the inclusion criteria, including 1509 patients for clinicopathologic features or prognosis evaluation and 725 participants for diagnostic evaluation. The results suggested that overexpression of IL-8 was significantly associated with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer (HR = 1.54, 95%CI 1.03-2.32), especially in Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage IV patients (HR = 2.28, 95%CI 1.60-3.25). With further subgroup analysis, we found that high IL-8 level in serum was significantly correlated with poor prognosis (HR = 2.13, 95%CI 1.49-3.05). In addition, significant correlations were observed between high IL-8 expression and advanced stage (OR = 3.01, 95%CI 1.98-4.56), lymphatic metastasis (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.39-3.63), and liver metastasis (OR = 3.47, 95%CI 1.74-6.89). Moreover, IL-8 had high diagnostic accuracy, with pooled sensitivity 0.70(95%CI 0.66-0.74), specificity 0.91(95%CI 0.86-0.94), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 7.00(95%CI 2.48-19.73), negative LR 0.24(95%CI 0.09-0.64), diagnostic OR 24.00(95%CI 5.52-104.38).ConclusionsThis study showed that IL-8 could be a potential indicator for detecting colorectal cancer and predicting prognosis. In addition, high IL-8 level was significantly correlated with advanced stage, lymphatic metastasis, liver metastasis.
| S-EPMC4391830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evidence-based characterization of the diagnostic and prognostic value of the hematological and immunological markers related to the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical to understand the clinical course of the infection and to assess in development and validation of biomarkers. METHODS:Based on systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct up to April 22, 2020, a total of 52 eligible articles with 6,320 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cohorts were included. Pairwise comparison between severe versus mild disease, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) versus general ward admission and expired versus survivors were performed for 36 laboratory parameters. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the DerSimonian Laird method/random effects model and converted to the Odds ratio (OR). The decision tree algorithm was employed to identify the key risk factor(s) attributed to severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS:Cohorts with elevated levels of white blood cells (WBCs) (OR = 1.75), neutrophil count (OR = 2.62), D-dimer (OR = 3.97), prolonged prothrombin time (PT) (OR = 1.82), fibrinogen (OR = 3.14), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR = 1.60), procalcitonin (OR = 4.76), IL-6 (OR = 2.10), and IL-10 (OR = 4.93) had higher odds of progression to severe phenotype. Decision tree model (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 81%) showed the high performance of neutrophil count at a cut-off value of more than 3.74x109/L for identifying patients at high risk of severe COVID-19. Likewise, ICU admission was associated with higher levels of WBCs (OR = 5.21), neutrophils (OR = 6.25), D-dimer (OR = 4.19), and prolonged PT (OR = 2.18). Patients with high IL-6 (OR = 13.87), CRP (OR = 7.09), D-dimer (OR = 6.36), and neutrophils (OR = 6.25) had the highest likelihood of mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Several hematological and immunological markers, in particular neutrophilic count, could be helpful to be included within the routine panel for COVID-19 infection evaluation to ensure risk stratification and effective management.
| S-EPMC7446892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.
| S-EPMC7327913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.
| S-EPMC9461282 | biostudies-literature