Dataset Information

COVID-19 in People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: COVID-19 is a global health emergency. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have concerns about whether they have a higher risk of getting the infection and suffer worse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings from studies on these questions have largely been inconsistent. We aimed to determine the epidemiological characteristics, clinical signs and symptoms, blood parameters, and clinical outcomes among PLHIV who contracted COVID-19. Relevant studies were identified through Medline, Cinahl, and PubMed databases. A random-effects model was used in meta-analyses with a 95% confidence interval. Eighty-two studies were included in the systematic review and sixty-seven studies for the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence proportion of COVID-19 among PLHIV was 0.9% (95% CI 0.6%, 1.1%) based on the data from seven cohort studies. Overall, 28.4% were hospitalised, of whom, 2.5% was severe-critical cases and 3.5% needed intensive care. The overall mortality rate was 5.3%. Hypertension was the most commonly reported comorbidity (24.0%). Fever (71.1%) was the most common symptom. Chest imaging demonstrated a wide range of abnormal findings encompassing common changes such as ground glass opacities and consolidation as well as a spectrum of less common abnormalities. Laboratory testing of inflammation markers showed that C-reactive protein, ferritin, and interleukin-6 were frequently elevated, albeit to different extents. Clinical features as well as the results of chest imaging and laboratory testing were similar in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-treated and non-treated patients. PLHIV were not found to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Hence, in COVID-19 management, it appears that they can be treated the same way as HIV negative individuals. Nevertheless, as the pandemic situation is rapidly evolving, more evidence may be needed to arrive at definitive recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Lee KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8037457 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) preventive therapy (TPT) is an essential component of care for people living with HIV (PLHIV). We compared efficacy, safety, completion, and drug-resistant TB risk for currently recommended TPT regimens through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized trials.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through June 9, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 or more TPT regimens (or placebo/no treatment) in PLHIV. Two independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We grouped TPT strategies as follows: placebo/no treatment, 6 to 12 months of isoniazid, 24 to 72 months of isoniazid, and rifamycin-containing regimens. A frequentist NMA (using graph theory) was carried out for the outcomes of development of TB disease, all-cause mortality, and grade 3 or worse hepatotoxicity. For other outcomes, graphical descriptions or traditional pairwise meta-analyses were carried out as appropriate. The potential role of confounding variables for TB disease and all-cause mortality was assessed through stratified analyses. A total of 6,466 unique studies were screened, and 157 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 20 studies (reporting 16 randomized trials) were included. The median sample size was 616 (interquartile range [IQR], 317 to 1,892). Eight were conducted in Africa, 3 in Europe, 3 in the Americas, and 2 included sites in multiple continents. According to the NMA, 6 to 12 months of isoniazid were no more efficacious in preventing microbiologically confirmed TB than rifamycin-containing regimens (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.4, p = 0.8); however, 6 to 12 months of isoniazid were associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0, p = 0.02) and a higher risk of grade 3 or higher hepatotoxicity (risk difference [RD] 8.9, 95% CI 2.8 to 14.9, p = 0.004). Finally, shorter regimens were associated with higher completion rates relative to longer regimens, and we did not find statistically significant differences in the risk of drug-resistant TB between regimens. Study limitations include potential confounding due to differences in posttreatment follow-up time and TB incidence in the study setting on the estimates of incidence of TB or all-cause mortality, as well as an underrepresentation of pregnant women and children.ConclusionsRifamycin-containing regimens appear safer and at least as effective as isoniazid regimens in preventing TB and death and should be considered part of routine care in PLHIV. Knowledge gaps remain as to which specific rifamycin-containing regimen provides the optimal balance of efficacy, completion, and safety.

Project description:BackgroundThe identification and appropriate management of people with advanced HIV disease is a key component in the HIV response. People with HIV who are hospitalised are at a higher risk of death, a risk that might persist after discharge. The aims of this study were to estimate the frequency of negative post-discharge outcomes, and to determine risk factors for such outcomes in people with HIV.MethodsUsing a broad search strategy combining terms for hospital discharge and HIV infection, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed and Embase from Jan 1, 2003 to Nov 30, 2021 to identify studies reporting outcomes among people with HIV following discharge from hospital. We estimated pooled proportions of readmissions and deaths after hospital discharge using random-effects models. We also did subgroup analyses by setting, region, duration of follow-up, and advanced HIV status at admission, and sensitivity analyses to assess heterogeneity.FindingsWe obtained data from 29 cohorts, which reported outcomes of people living with HIV after hospital discharge in 92 781 patients. The pooled proportion of patients readmitted to hospital after discharge was 18·8% (95% CI 15·3-22·3) and 14·1% (10·8-17·3) died post-discharge. In sensitivity analyses, no differences were identified in the proportion of patients who were readmitted or died when comparing studies published before 2016 with those published after 2016. Post-discharge mortality was higher in studies from Africa (23·1% [16·5-29·7]) compared with the USA (7·5% [4·4-10·6]). For studies that reported both post-discharge mortality and readmission, the pooled proportion of patients who had this composite adverse outcome was 31·7% (23·9-39·5). Heterogeneity was moderate, and largely explained by patient status and linkage to care. Reported risk factors for readmission included low CD4 cell count at admission, longer length of stay, discharge against medical advice, and not linking to care following discharge; inpatient treatment with antiretroviral therapy (ART) during hospitalisation was protective of post-discharge mortality.InterpretationMore than a quarter of patients with HIV had an adverse outcome after hospital discharge with no evidence of improvement in the past 15 years. This systematic review highlights the importance of ensuring post-discharge referral and appropriate management, including ART, to reduce mortality and readmission to hospital among this group of high-risk patients.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.TranslationsFor the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 in People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets