A systematic review and meta-analysis of regional risk factors for critical outcomes of COVID-19 during early phase of the pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim HJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8105319 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: On 29th December 2019, a cluster of cases displaying the symptoms of a "pneumonia of unknown cause" was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province of China. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The search strategy involved peer-reviewed studies published between 1st January and 11th February 2020 in Pubmed, Google scholar and China Knowledge Resource Integrated database. Publications identified were screened for their title and abstracts according to the eligibility criteria, and further shortlisted by full-text screening. Three independent reviewers extracted data from these studies, and studies were assessed for potential risk of bias. Studies comprising non-overlapping patient populations, were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for patient characteristics. Results: A total of 29 publications were selected after full-text review. This comprised of 18 case reports, three case series and eight cross-sectional studies on patients admitted from mid-December of 2019 to early February of 2020. A total of 533 adult patients with pooled median age of 56 (95% CI: 49-57) and a pooled prevalence of male of 60% (95% CI: 52-68%) were admitted to hospital at a pooled median of 7 days (95% CI: 7-7) post-onset of symptoms. The most common symptoms at admission were fever, cough and fatigue, with a pooled prevalence of 90% (95% CI: 81-97%), 58% (95% CI: 47-68%), and 50% (95% CI: 29-71%), respectively. Myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, diarrhea and sore throat were less common with pooled prevalence of 27% (95% CI: 20-36%), 25% (95% CI: 15-35%), 10% (95% CI: 7-13%), 8% (95% CI: 5-13%), and 7% (95% CI: 1-15%), respectively. ICU patients had a higher proportion of shortness of breath at presentation, as well as pre-existing hypertension, cardiovascular disease and COPD, compared to non-ICU patients in 2 studies (n = 179). Conclusion: This study highlights the key epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 cases during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7300278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study sought to determine the impact of the pandemic response to healthcare delivery on outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease.MethodsThis is a population-based cohort study performed in the province of Nova Scotia (population 979,499), between Pre-COVID (March 1, 2017 - March 16, 2020) and in-COVID (March 17, 2020 - December 31, 2020) periods. Adult patients (≥18 years) with new onset or existing cardiovascular disease were included for comparison between periods. The main outcome measures included: cardiovascular emergency department visits or hospitalizations, mortality, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.ResultsIn the first month of the in-COVID period, emergency department visits (n=51,750) for cardiac symptoms decreased by 20.8% (95% CI 14.0% - 27.0%, p<0.001). Cardiovascular hospitalizations (n=20 609) declined by 48.1% (95% CI 40.4% to 54.9%, p<0.001). In-hospital mortality rate increased in patients with cardiovascular admissions in secondary care institutions by 55.1% (95%CI 10.1%-118%, p=0.013). A decline of 20.4% - 44.0% occurred in cardiovascular surgical/interventional procedures. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (n=5528) increased from a monthly mean of 115±15 to 136±14, beginning in May, 2020. Mortality for ambulatory patients awaiting cardiac intervention (n=14,083) increased from 0.16% (n=12501) to 2.49% (n=361) in the in-COVID period (p<0.0001).ConclusionThis study demonstrates increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality during restrictions maintained during COVID-19, in an area with low burden of COVID-19 disease. As the healthcare system recovers or enters subsequent waves of COVID-19, these findings should inform communication to the public regarding cardiovascular symptoms and policy for delivery of cardiovascular care.
| S-EPMC8704736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that brought the whole world to a standstill, has led to financial and health care burden. We aimed to evaluate epidemiological characteristics, needs of resources, outcomes, and global burden of the disease.MethodsSystematic review was performed searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to March 25, 2020, for full-text observational studies that described epidemiological characteristics, following MOOSE protocol. Global data were collected from the JHU-Corona Virus Resource Center, WHO-COVID-2019 situation reports, KFF.org, and Worldometers.info until March 31, 2020. The prevalence percentages were calculated. The global data were plotted in excel to calculate case fatality rate (CFR), predicted CFR, COVID-19 specific mortality rate, and doubling time for cases and deaths. CFR was predicted using Pearson correlation, regression models, and coefficient of determination.ResultsFrom 21 studies of 2747 patients, 8.4% of patients died, 20.4% recovered, 15.4% were admitted to ICU and 14.9% required ventilation. COVID-19 was more prevalent in patients with hypertension (19.3%), smoking (11.3%), diabetes mellitus (10%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.4%). Common complications were pneumonia (82%), cardiac complications (26.4%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (15.7%), secondary infection (11.2%), and septic shock (4.3%). Though CFR and COVID-19 specific death rates are dynamic, they were consistently high for Italy, Spain, and Iran. Polynomial growth models were best fit for all countries for predicting CFR. Though many interventions have been implemented, stern measures like nationwide lockdown and school closure occurred after very high infection rates (>10cases per 100 000population) prevailed. Given the trend of government measures and decline of new cases in China and South Korea, most countries will reach the peak between April 1-20, if interventions are followed.ConclusionsA collective approach undertaken by a responsible government, wise strategy implementation and a receptive population may help contain the spread of COVID-19 outbreak. Close monitoring of predictive models of such indicators in the highly affected countries would help to evaluate the potential fatality if the second wave of pandemic occurs. The future studies should be focused on identifying accurate indicators to mitigate the effect of underestimation or overestimation of COVID-19 burden.
| S-EPMC7567430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes.ResultsOf 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.
| S-EPMC8006628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSolid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of mortality than those without COVID-19. However, it is unclear how SOT patient outcomes compare to the general population without SOT who contract COVID-19.MethodsWe used the National Inpatient Sample from January to December 2020 to investigate inpatient outcomes seen in SOT recipients after contracting COVID-19 compared to nontransplant patients. We identified our study sample using ICD-10 CM and excluded those <18 years of age and those with dual organ transplants. Inpatient outcomes were compared in SOT and non-SOT COVID cohorts, and we further evaluated predictors of mortality in the SOT with COVID population.ResultsOut of the 1,416,445 COVID-19 admissions included in the study, 8315 (0.59%) were single SOT recipients. Our analysis that adjusted for multiple baseline characteristics and comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19 in SOT patients was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-3.02, P < 0.01), lower rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.85, P < 0.01), and similar rates of cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, circulatory shock, cerebrovascular events, and in-hospital mortality. Age >65 was associated with mortality in SOT patients.ConclusionIn this nationally representative sample, SOT patients presenting with COVID-19 experienced similar rates of mortality compared to those without SOT. SOT patients were more likely to develop acute kidney injury. Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between transplant patient outcomes and COVID-19.
| S-EPMC11018036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has exerted devastating effects on healthcare delivery systems, specifically those for pregnant women. The aim of this review was to determine the maternal perception of antenatal health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic critical phase.MethodsScopus, Web of Science, SAGE, and Ovid were systematically searched using the keywords "maternal", "COVID-19 pandemic", "maternal health service", and "maternal perception". Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were original articles, written in English, and published between January 1, 2020, and December 12, 2022. This review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible articles were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.ResultsOf 2683 articles identified, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Five themes emerged regarding the determinants of maternal perception of antenatal healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic critical phase: lack of psychosocial support, poor maternal healthcare quality, poor opinion of virtual consultation, health structure adaptation failure to meet women's needs, and satisfaction with maternal health services.ConclusionMaternal perception, specifically pregnant women's psychosocial and maternal health needs, should be focused on the continuation of maternal care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical to identify the maternal perception of maternal health services during the pandemic to ensure health service equity in the "new normal" future.
| S-EPMC10889657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionConflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.Material and methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until 14 May 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method.ResultsThirty-seven studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 677 858 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 21 028 650 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was a significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (28 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.94, 95% confidence [CI] 0.91-0.98) but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). The reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98) and induced PTB (four studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00). There was no reduction in PTB when stratified by gestational age <34, <32 or <28 weeks. There was no difference in stillbirths between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (21 studies, uaOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.23; four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in birthweight (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g) during the pandemic period. There was an increase in maternal mortality (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), which was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic time period may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no difference in stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic period.
| S-EPMC8222877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken. We aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of the pandemic.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from Jan 1, 2020, to Jan 8, 2021, for case-control studies, cohort studies, and brief reports comparing maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, pregnancy complications, and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes before and during the pandemic. We also planned to record any additional maternal and offspring outcomes identified. Studies of solely SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant individuals, as well as case reports, studies without comparison groups, narrative or systematic literature reviews, preprints, and studies reporting on overlapping populations were excluded. Quantitative meta-analysis was done for an outcome when more than one study presented relevant data. Random-effects estimate of the pooled odds ratio (OR) of each outcome were generated with use of the Mantel-Haenszel method. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211753).FindingsThe search identified 3592 citations, of which 40 studies were included. We identified significant increases in stillbirth (pooled OR 1·28 [95% CI 1·07-1·54]; I2=63%; 12 studies, 168 295 pregnancies during and 198 993 before the pandemic) and maternal death (1·37 [1·22-1·53; I2=0%, two studies [both from low-income and middle-income countries], 1 237 018 and 2 224 859 pregnancies) during versus before the pandemic. Preterm births before 37 weeks' gestation were not significantly changed overall (0·94 [0·87-1·02]; I2=75%; 15 studies, 170 640 and 656 423 pregnancies) but were decreased in high-income countries (0·91 [0·84-0·99]; I2=63%; 12 studies, 159 987 and 635 118 pregnancies), where spontaneous preterm birth was also decreased (0·81 [0·67-0·97]; two studies, 4204 and 6818 pregnancies). Mean Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores were higher, indicating poorer mental health, during versus before the pandemic (pooled mean difference 0·42 [95% CI 0·02-0·81; three studies, 2330 and 6517 pregnancies). Surgically managed ectopic pregnancies were increased during the pandemic (OR 5·81 [2·16-15·6]; I2=26%; three studies, 37 and 272 pregnancies). No overall significant effects were identified for other outcomes included in the quantitative analysis: maternal gestational diabetes; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; preterm birth before 34 weeks', 32 weeks', or 28 weeks' gestation; iatrogenic preterm birth; labour induction; modes of delivery (spontaneous vaginal delivery, caesarean section, or instrumental delivery); post-partum haemorrhage; neonatal death; low birthweight (<2500 g); neonatal intensive care unit admission; or Apgar score less than 7 at 5 min.InterpretationGlobal maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Some outcomes show considerable disparity between high-resource and low-resource settings. There is an urgent need to prioritise safe, accessible, and equitable maternity care within the strategic response to this pandemic and in future health crises.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8012052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo examine the nurses' burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignWe followed the Cochrane criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, CINAHL and pre-print services (medRχiv and PsyArXiv) were searched from January 1 to November 15, 2020 and we removed duplicates.Review methodsWe applied a random effect model to estimate pooled effects since the heterogeneity between results was very high.ResultsSixteen studies, including 18,935 nurses met the inclusion criteria. The overall prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 34.1%, of depersonalization was 12.6% and of lack of personal accomplishment was 15.2%. The main risk factors that increased nurses' burnout were the following: younger age, decreased social support, low family and colleagues readiness to cope with COVID-19 outbreak, increased perceived threat of Covid-19, longer working time in quarantine areas, working in a high-risk environment, working in hospitals with inadequate and insufficient material and human resources, increased workload and lower level of specialized training regarding COVID-19.ConclusionNurses experience high levels of burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, while several sociodemographic, social and occupational factors affect this burnout.ImpactWe found that burnout among nurses is a crucial issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to prepare nurses to cope better with COVID-19 pandemic. Identification of risk factors for burnout could be a significant weapon giving nurses and health care systems the ability to response in a better way against the following COVID-19 waves in the near future.
| S-EPMC8250618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn the absence of a national strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many public health decisions fell to local elected officials and agencies. Outcomes of such policies depend on a complex combination of local epidemic conditions and demographic features as well as the intensity and timing of such policies and are therefore unclear.ObjectiveTo use a decision analytical model of the COVID-19 epidemic to investigate potential outcomes if actual policies enacted in March 2020 (during the first wave of the epidemic) in the St Louis region of Missouri had been delayed.Design, setting, and participantsA previously developed, publicly available, open-source modeling platform (Local Epidemic Modeling for Management & Action, version 2.1) designed to enable localized COVID-19 epidemic projections was used. The compartmental epidemic model is programmed in R and Stan, uses bayesian inference, and accepts user-supplied demographic, epidemiologic, and policy inputs. Hospital census data for 1.3 million people from St Louis City and County from March 14, 2020, through July 15, 2020, were used to calibrate the model.ExposuresHypothetical delays in actual social distancing policies (which began on March 13, 2020) by 1, 2, or 4 weeks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted that explored plausible spontaneous behavior change in the absence of social distancing policies.Main outcomes and measuresHospitalizations and deaths.ResultsA model of 1.3 million residents of the greater St Louis, Missouri, area found an initial reproductive number (indicating transmissibility of an infectious agent) of 3.9 (95% credible interval [CrI], 3.1-4.5) in the St Louis region before March 15, 2020, which fell to 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.88-0.98) after social distancing policies were implemented between March 15 and March 21, 2020. By June 15, a 1-week delay in policies would have increased cumulative hospitalizations from an observed actual number of 2246 hospitalizations to 8005 hospitalizations (75% CrI: 3973-15 236 hospitalizations) and increased deaths from an observed actual number of 482 deaths to a projected 1304 deaths (75% CrI, 656-2428 deaths). By June 15, a 2-week delay would have yielded 3292 deaths (75% CrI, 2104-4905 deaths)-an additional 2810 deaths or a 583% increase beyond what was actually observed. Sensitivity analyses incorporating a range of spontaneous behavior changes did not avert severe epidemic projections.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this decision analytical model study suggest that, in the St Louis region, timely social distancing policies were associated with improved population health outcomes, and small delays may likely have led to a COVID-19 epidemic similar to the most heavily affected areas in the US. These findings indicate that an open-source modeling platform designed to accept user-supplied local and regional data may provide projections tailored to, and more relevant for, local settings.
| S-EPMC8411298 | biostudies-literature